News & Current Events
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-08T13:54:03-05:00 — #1
Recent threads have sparked my interest. Yes, there are a lot of gun deaths in America. But that is the wrong question when asking if more gun control will fix the issue.
One thing we have to look at is how many of those deaths were from legal gun owners? The answer doesn't help gun control advocates.
dave_l — 2017-11-08T14:08:23-05:00 — #2
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-08T14:10:50-05:00 — #3
The problem is already in the fact that what is termed "gun control" is a misnomer, as it has not much to do with "controlling guns" but essentially is more about "FORBIDDING the possession of guns" for most people. It is more about "taking away people's right to bear arms" under a false pretense that there would be less crimes involving the use of guns. Such legislation, which effectively diminishes people's self-defense capabilities is most likely serving an entirely different agenda under the disguise of looking like a fantastic "goody two shoes" theology.
The bad guys, of course, will laugh at such situation and will be very happy with such a situation seeing that their terrain of criminal activities without meeting armed resistance will be widened considerably.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-08T14:13:24-05:00 — #4
Exactly. Could not have said it better myself.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-08T14:14:07-05:00 — #5
Those aren't violent deaths so they don't count.....
alex_vaughn — 2017-11-08T16:18:42-05:00 — #6
Tracking and prosecuting illegal owners of guns is part of what needs to be done. It is clear that the US has a problem with firearm violence based upon our death rate (10.64 per 100,000 persons) due to firearms, compared the rates of other countries.
Comparable nations include: Argentina (10.05), Mexico (11.17), Uragray (14.01), Nicaragua (7.29), and Panama (17.60).
Low-gun death nations include: Australia (0.93), France (3.01), Israel (2.09), Georgia(1.98), Estonia (2.54), Belgium (2.42), and Canada (2.22).
The High-risk nations are Jamaica (39.74), Swaziland (37.16), Guatemala (36.38), Venezuela (50.90) El Salvador (46.85).
bkmitchell — 2017-11-08T17:13:57-05:00 — #7
somewhat related News:
Donald Trump 'tells Japanese emperor mass shootings can happen anywhere' — in country with no mass shootings Japan counts gun deaths in single figures annually
bill_coley — 2017-11-08T22:19:47-05:00 — #8
Thanks for this note, Brian.
It is SO Trumpian for the president to excuse our national penchant for mass shootings in such a tone- and fact-deaf manner.
gao_lu — 2017-11-08T23:59:09-05:00 — #9
Trump is right.
- Jul, 2016 - Tokyo had a mass killing of 19 by knife.
- Mar, 2014 - Kunming had 31 deaths by knifing with hundreds more injured.
- Mar, 2010 - Nigeria 500 killed by machete
- Sep, 2001 - New York 2,996 dead and 6000 wounded by airplane
I could go on a long time.
The difference of numbers killed and how in various countries is due primarily to culture differences, not due to gun control.
alex_vaughn — 2017-11-09T00:17:23-05:00 — #10
Japan’s rate of mass killings is still much smaller. And, Trump was lying. The example you pointed out didn’t involve shooting at all. Also, knives are safer on average than a gun. The example you stated happened at a home for people with disabilities.
The chance of an American being killed by a terrorist is less than dying by toddler.
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T00:56:24-05:00 — #11
For cultural reasons.
Correct. The point is killers don't need guns. Control their guns and they use something else which is not much less effective, as the examples I provided illustrate.
Which exist in many countries.
bill_coley — 2017-11-09T01:12:20-05:00 — #12
A good point, Alex. Japan's crime rates, almost across the board, are much lower than ours. It so happens that Japan has much stricter gun laws and a much lower gun ownership rate, but I'm sure those are just coincidences.
Alex, it's not clear to me that Trump said "shootings" can happen anywhere, or "killings" can happen anywhere. Nonetheless, my critique of his remark - whichever words he chose - is that it diminished the significance of the deaths of 26 people in Texas and 59 in Las Vegas.
"Oh, those mass killings? They can happen anywhere!" As if they're commonplace, just another inconvenience of living in the modern world. Those 85 people didn't die just anywhere, Mr. President. They died in YOUR country, on YOUR watch! You should be outraged into action that the people of YOUR country kill each other at a rate that's 11 times greater than Japanese citizens kill each other.
How many people would the Las Vegas shooter have killed from his 32nd window with knives? If we took away all guns, would the total number of people in the U.S. murdered rise, fall, or stay the same? We all KNOW it would fall. Guns simplify murder.
Culture and perhaps THIS?...
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan—one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it’s not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel’s landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
So if we magically removed all guns from the U.S. for one year, at the end of the year, would the total number of people murdered during the gun-less year be higher, lower, or about the same at the last year with guns?
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T01:58:26-05:00 — #13
I don't know.
I do know this, recently on a tropical island shortly after a hurricane, there were few guns available. This is a region with a homicide rate much higher than the US average and historically very few of those occur due to guns, which are moderately regulated. Those who have guns would be government and some who use guns as a visual mitigation to reduce impulse violence.
Within hours after the devastation gangs were forming carrying machetes. Many of the "civilized," well-educated residents made "kill sticks" with knives mounted on the end of bamboo poles "for personal protection." Some formed gangs for protection--sort of Lord of the Flies fashion.
Given this reasonably well-controlled environment as a model, I ask you:
So if we magically removed all guns from this tropical island for one year, at the end of the year, would the total number of people murdered during the gun-less year be higher, lower, or about the same as the last year with guns?
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-09T03:23:34-05:00 — #14
Those in favor of what they call "more gun control" have hardly ever detailed what they actually mean by that ...
Do you mean that current laws need to be adjusted? if so, in which way? how would such changes effect the situation?
Does the right to bear arms need to be eliminated altogether? what means of self-defense (or other kinds of defense, if necessary) should citizens have?
bkmitchell — 2017-11-09T05:38:00-05:00 — #15
Trump specifically referred to "Mass Shootings" something which Japan lacks partly because of strong laws.
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T05:58:11-05:00 — #16
Probably, strict gun laws would reduce mass shootings. I don't know of data proving that strong gun laws reduce mass shootings in Japan, though common sense says it might.
bkmitchell — 2017-11-09T06:01:45-05:00 — #17
In Japan's case think that laws are "part" of the reason, but only part of it.
bill_coley — 2017-11-09T10:45:29-05:00 — #18
Given that in your "reasonably well-controlled environment" the most prevalent and oft-employed weapons appear to be machetes and "kill sticks," and that the only characterization of the number of available guns you offer is "few," I would expect there to be about the same number if murders at the end of a gun-less year.
Were the circumstances of your model different - were guns the statistically prominent weapon on the island that they are in the U.S. as to both ownership and role in the national homicide rate - then I think the result of a gun-less year would be different. I think the number of murders would be less than they were before,
The point of my question was to test the premise you offered in a previous post...
It seems to me that the logical outcome of that premise is that you believe at the end of a gun-less year there would be about the same number of murders as before. Why? Because if we control the guns, killers will "use something else."
I propose that guns differ from other weaponry because they allow death at distance and with speed. Assume a killer is 40 feet from a group of people. Compare the number in that group the killer can kill in the next 15 seconds with a gun - say a semi-automatic replete with one of those bump stocks - to the number the killer can kill with a machete.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-09T11:24:07-05:00 — #19
I would contend that if it is lower across the board, not just with guns, then it has nothing to do with gun control, but rather the culture as I have been saying. So yes, Alex made a great point.
It is not the President's job to watch every city, county and state for every crime Bill. That's absurd.
Even if the 2nd Ammendment didn't exist, this would be impossible, surely you know that.
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T15:50:43-05:00 — #20
You have a good point at first glance, but it is untenable. If you look at the number of people killed by the weapon of choice we find that guns or non-guns typically don't make much difference. In fact, weapons like airplanes prove far superior for effectiveness. The imgined potential for there to be a difference seems plausible, but the outcomes prove quite differently.
next page →