Senseless Gun Deaths thread.

[T'Chenka]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

[T'Chenka]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

Gun control doesn’t mean that mass casualty events still can’t happen. Just ask the people of Marseilles.

It means less of them and added difficulty in enacting them. Mass casualty events are only part of it.

[T'Chenka]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

[T'Chenka]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

That posture offends many because you're saying the government cannot prevent you from weilding a nuclear missle or an Infinity Gauntlet. I assure you Fuzzy, the FBI will not tolerate your originalist attitude when they come for your nukes.

[T'Chenka]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

[T'Chenka]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

Americans can own anti-aircraft guns

Just the bullet kind though, or can they own the missile launcher ones?

[T'Chenka]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

After the 1996 buyback (The hilarious program where taxes were increased to finance the government forcefully exchanging firearms for cash) our homicide rate didn't decrease until the mid 2000s, and our gun laws didn't prevent 15 year old acquiring a handgun and shooting up a police station killing a police officer and a man from holding a cafe hostage with a shotgun and killing two people within a years distance of each other in metropolitan Sydney, to name two recent cases.

Homicide rates is a seperate issue in many but not all contexts. You DO know of those 2 incidents, but you DON'T necessarily know how many incidents that could have taken place but never did because of the law. You're basically saying "2 within a year is a big number!" but without proper context. The actual context, which we could never have real numbers for, is more like "2 within a year is a (big average small?) number compared to __ a year".

Also, whenever you, another private citizen or any US politician use the "muh Australia" talking point you're essentially revealing the end goal of gun control which isn't simply mild reforms like "background checks" or "ending the gun show loophole" but to make firearms almost impossible for regular citizens to own. In other words, to effectively cripple the 2nd amendment.

Firearms SHOULD be somewhat difficult to obtain and keep, just like a driver's license. Here in Canada, a driver's license process is this - at 16, you can pass the written exam to get a learner's permit, which has strict regulations. 12 months later, you can get your "G2" license, which is a license requiring a fully licensed companion to.ride with you, during the day, off the highways. 12 months after that, you may apply for your full "G" license. For the rest of your life, you just fill out paperwork every few years and refrain from a large amount of accidents and tickets. After retirement age, you must do a driving test every 2 years to prove you are still capable.

The second amendment is not absolute on everybody getting guns no matter what, or else prisoners IN PRISON would have them. There is obviously a line in the sand where you say "sorry, the second amendment doesn't apply to your current situation". You wanna argue about where the line is? Okay sure. You wanna be like Fuzzy Bear and tell me any line is unconstitutional? I'll laugh in your face.

[T'Chenka]

How you do anything in Canada is irrelevant. We are not Canada (which is a very good thing).

This is not necessarily true AT ALL. Canada is arguably the most comparable country on Earth to the United States, culturally. When looking at how proposed laws will affect society and culture, examining how things worked out in Canada whre the law was already passed is a prudent choice.

[T'Chenka]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

I see you're making mountains out of mole hills / very minor differences that make Austtalia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot be so drastically different from America that none of the same policies would have comparable outcomes.

[T'Chenka]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

I see you're making mountains out of mole hills / very minor differences that make Austtalia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot be so drastically different from America that none of the same policies would have comparable outcomes.

One major difference: we have land borders that make it easier for smuggling weapons. Australia does not. I take it you didn't do so well in classes that teach geography? Because that's not even remotely a minor difference.

It can be argued that a fair compromise would involve massively increasing border security and more restrictions on who enters our country, but you folks seem to think that's unreasonable.

Gun laws regulate legal registered weapons and (some) criminals won't care what the law is.

Border smuggling of contraband - drugs or guns - is mostly a seperate issue.

You could have amazing and effective gun laws more or less eliminating gun deaths via "regular" guns but see a major problem with deaths by contraband guns. There is some legislative aspect to it, but it's obviously part of a bigger security issue.

Until I see non-Atlas Australians saying that contraband guns are causing deaths and it's a real issue, I don't think I'll allow you to steer me towards border security conversation in this thread.