Newtown, Conn. - Is this the last straw?

[Mylo]

I don't think the problemem is the ammount of guns, but how they are stored. If those guns were locked up in a proper gun safe instead of laying about, it would be alot harder for him to shoot his mom. If she could have made a stuggle or caught him breaking into the safe, things might have been alot better.

But still, the amount of guns does have an effect. Why not focus on both of these problems then?

On another note, if there had been no guns in his house in the first place, he would not have as easily obtained them.

[Narei Mooncatt]

You never know, and he could have easily obtained something else just as, if not more, destructive.

[Mylo]

You never know, and he could have easily obtained something else just as, if not more, destructive.

That's a possibility, but nothing comes to mind. What do you think he could have obtained that easily?

[phoenixwolf]

the baseball bat comes to mind, simple but dangerous. also fertilizer bomb,nail bomb...these are esaly made/obtained

[Narei Mooncatt]

Yeah, I was just going to say, remember the OKC bombing? All legal and easily obtainable materials in a standard rental truck.

[Mylo]

Yeah, I was just going to say, remember the OKC bombing? All legal and easily obtainable materials in a standard rental truck.

I think it's safe to say that we will all come up with more creative ways of killing each other with household items. However, cleaning supplies are made to clean. Guns are made to injure and kill. That's what this debate concerns.

[Narei Mooncatt]

In the hands of lawful people, guns are one of the best tools against armed and/or dangerous criminals. Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm. They don't care what something was designed for. So in that respect, there isn't much difference between guns and other weapons like bats, knives, bombs, etc.

[phoenixwolf]

In the hands of lawful people, guns are one of the best tools against armed and/or dangerous criminals. Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm. They don't care what something was designed for. So in that respect, there isn't much difference between guns and other weapons like bats, knives, bombs, etc.

hes right,a knife is for cooking but some peole will use it as a mugging tool,a hammer is for constuction but some people will use it for breaking into cars.

[McMajik]

Yes, they are designed to kill, but you've seen anything can be just as lethal in the hands of someone hell bent on causing harm.

No they can't. They can be dangerous, but just as lethal as guns? ~Really?~ The fact someone could kill using things like a knife or a hammer doesn't change the fact that guns are the very best tool, designed specifically for the job. Attacking someone with a knife is a hell of a lot more complicated and risky (and easier to fight back against) than someone who only has to point and squeeze a trigger from a distance.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Then lets take guns out completely. In today's society, it's probably easier than ever to cause mass casualties with a few well crafted items. And you can get those without background checks, waiting periods, or stealing if you're someone not allowed to own a gun. Heck, an argument could be made that it's easier because you stay under the radar. I think guns are the weapon of choice in these events because they are intimidating, and "hands on."

Not to say video games lead to this, but I'll use them to put it into something we can more easily relate to. Say you need to clear a building of the enemy soldiers. Sure, you could simply toss in a grenade and take them all out without worry, but it's more fun and more of an adrenalin rush to go in guns playing and taking them down with your AK-47. I think that's the kind of thing going through these shooters' heads.

As to people attacking with bats and knives, I'd rather have a gun than to have to face someone stronger and better armed than me in hand to hand combat.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

Would it surpised anyone that "assault weapons" are already prohibited in Conn.? You would not know that, given the way the media report these kind of events. In the days leading up to passage of the Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban, it was typical of the major networks to show full-auto guns in operation, then report that they ought to be banned. They were already banned by NFA 1930, which requires the owners of such guns to submit paperwork, obtain permission of the sheriff or local police chief, and pay a $200 excise tax on each machinegun. If the law officer says "no" then you go around him and set up a corporation.
  With that in mind: Why would it be expected that owners of military-looking semi-auto-only firearms submit to a similar process? Just convert each to full-auto/select fire. The politicians may run their re-elections on taking these weapons of war off the streets, when in fact they've only increased the number of machine guns in private hands.

[Mylo]

Instead of focusing on whether or not certain items are as lethal as guns or not, lets take a look at the facts.  Let's compare the US with Australia, the UK, and Japan. 

Gun Laws in Australia
Gun Laws in the UK (more concise)
Gun Laws in Japan
Concise comparison of gun laws in the US, Australia, the UK, and Japan, as well as select other countries

The total firearm-related death rate in the US per 100,000 people is 10.2.  For Australia, it's 1.05.  For the UK, it's 0.25.  For Japan, it's 0.07.  See table.

Here is a chart displaying gun deaths vs gun ownership.  Clearly there is a trend.   


courtesy Mark Reid - read the full analysis

And here is another table comparing gun murders and ownership.  The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world.  There are almost as many guns as there are people.  The US also has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the world. 

Now, let's take a look at just intentional homicide rates, regardless of whether they were committed with firearms. 

The US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.  For the UK, it's 1.2.  For Australia, it's 1.0.  For Japan, it's 0.4. 

So yes, a killer might still be able to use knives and household-made bombs to murder.  But from the results, we can see that it is still less effective to do so.

[Kobuk]

A gun or any other type of item is only "lethal" depending on how it's used against someone.

[Ickyrus]

A gun can be used at a distance, semi/automatic weapons can kill many in a very short space of time, even a handgun can kill quite a few in the right hands. A knife or hammer or whatever's around, not so much. Unless you're an expert knife thrower, you'd have a very hard time doing as much massacring with a knife as a gun. As for explosives, I'm fairly sure some places (Might even be a lot of places) limit the amount of fertiliser one person can buy at once, and they take ID for big purchases of it too. But it takes a lot more brain power to make a dangerous bomb and plant it somewhere discreetly than to wander into a crowded place and pull a trigger. Yeah, you can probably find all manner of instruction on the internet on how to make a bomb, but it still takes some mental capability to pull it off. Any unstable kid and their mum can pull a little lever on a lump of death.

And while you say anything can be lethal, that's not enough to make everything a weapon to everyone. I'm as feeble as a noodle, I have difficulty stabbing vegetables, let alone people, I could never bludgeon someone with a piece of wood or the like and a good breath of wind is enough to knock me over, but even someone as small and flimsy as me could shoot someone dead if they were so inclined.
I also doubt I could wrap my head around making a bomb or find the patience to learn how to, and I like to believe I'm not stupid.

I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.

That's the misconception. There is strong evidence suggesting that it's places like gun free zones and locations where they are heavily restricted/banned that you should be most concerned that someone else will have a gun. Bans only remove people's ability to defend themselve with one if they would otherwise choose to. Criminals are more likely to target people/places without guns than where people may have one to defend themselves.

@ Mylo

Even the author of that graph says it's not to be taken too seriously due to the source material (Wikipedia) and that it was only an amateur undertaking. One thing I'd like to see is a comparison of gun related deaths vs population density, as well as compared to gun laws in effect. The graph you posted did country wide, which isn't a good way to compare a vast and varied place like the U.S. to other countries, most of which are much smaller and even in population and even cultures for that matter. In the U.S., you have places like Washington D.C. and Chicago with very high gun crime rates but very restrictive laws on guns, and places like the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, etc with lax gun laws, high gun ownership, and low crime rates. The closest I found graph wise was this one linked from your post:



But even that doesn't fully account for everything. Take Illinois and New York. Both states have very densly populated areas and very rural areas. Both with different gun control laws that vary city by city in some instances. So while they look relatively normal on the graph, a place like Chicago with "low ownership rates" (which had one of, if not the highest gun crime rates in history last year despite control laws and quotes used because criminals often don't legally own the guns they use in the first place) is offset by the large rural population with more ownership and less crime. I did come across an article found at Forbes that talked about some research that delved more in to this sort of thing and also crime rates before and after right to carry laws were inacted and how bans didn't work. Two of the more notable quotes from it were:

The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.

That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun.

And from the study the article is about:

...large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

There are also other things to consider, such as culture, that would be almost impossible to put into real perspective. Like the Japan argument. They have next to no gun crime, but look at what they have to give up in liberty for it.

[Ickyrus]

I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.

That's the misconception. There is strong evidence suggesting that it's places like gun free zones and locations where they are heavily restricted/banned that you should be most concerned that someone else will have a gun. Bans only remove people's ability to defend themselve with one if they would otherwise choose to. Criminals are more likely to target people/places without guns than where people may have one to defend themselves.

Not a misconception in Australia. I can honestly say that I have not ONCE felt worried that someone might shoot me here. "Criminals" (The way it's being said in this thread makes it seem like you should know who's going to be one from birth) aren't rampant on our streets with guns blazing every year, we don't have major school shootings, we had a loon once and upped the gunlaws and that seemed to work very well in Aus. So whoever these criminals targeting my country because of its laws are, they're doing a terrible job. As for your gun law-ier states, they're still pretty lax (The mother still had a gun, if she could have one, chances are someone else at the school could have too) and people who wanted could probably just meander to another state to pick up a gun, right? Also, these instances aren't really chosen for their location being less occupied by gun-carriers, but for personal ANGRY reasons. Had this kid been in another state with less gun laws, I dare say he still would have gone nutty.
Also, I believe there are more, and better ways to defend yourself and the population than with with a gun. Were I to pull one out at someone who pulled a gun on me, I'm sure as heck that it'd make the chance of them shooting me first a lot more likely. HOWEVER, with our TERRIBLY SOCIALIST/sarcasm free mental health services and decent checks on people buying guns (I'll have it known that I live 5 minutes from the biggest gun store in the country, we still have guns here), by being sensible (Not wandering into dark alleys at night in seedy areas, traveling in herds, going to reputable areas, not provoking anyone who may be dangerous etc) and by being decent and trusting enough of each other we seem to get by just fine in this country. Yes homicides and other crimes still happen, they always will, but as far as I can tell our gun laws have made this country a lot safer.

Unfortunately it's so ingrained in American society that you NEED a gun because the gun companies got their advertising so right that I doubt there's any way to fix the problem over there. Everyone already has a gun, so IMO it's too late but that doesn't mean that the govt. should just sit back and wait for everyone to kill each other, does it? Gun laws alone aren't going to be enough, but it's a step.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

_{In the US, the soft drink industry is far larger than the firearms industry. Even the mayor of NYC has taken aim at Big Pop.}
Actually, one doesn't see advertising for guns on network television here in the US, unless it's during an outdoor/hunting/shooting program on cable. Programs like Sons of Guns and others are quite popular.

The National Rifle Association produces public service announcements, but the networks don't air them, so stringent is their anti-gun bias. The only gun ads I've seen are from local gun shops. The only time I've heard gun-oriented ads on radio is during Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, which is only on for a few hours on Sunday. Crimson Trace laser sights being one such ad.

The NRA is constantly villified, yet they signed up another 100,000 new members in 18 days. They recently polled more favorably than the President.

AR-15-type modern sporting rifles are flying out the door as quickly as they can be assembled. Ammunition is commanding premium prices in certain calibres and the FBI is processing record numbers of gun purchases.

Many folks have taken to heart the maxim that it is better to have power and not need it than to need power and not have it.

[Ickyrus]

There's more to advertising than TV. A lot more. Most of it has absolutely nothing to do with TV

Many folks have taken to heart the maxim that it is better to have power and not need it than to need power and not have it.

That right there. And your constitution, and the media about having guns banned causing a spike in sales. That's all part of it. Gun companies don't need TV or other conventional advertising. They barely have to spend a penny on it, since they already seem to have it in everyone's heads that a gun is necessary.
Why not go out and buy a less destructive means of self protection? There are plenty out there. Why does it have to be a gun?

[Narei Mooncatt]

I think part of the current difference of opinions is due to geography. Australia is pretty much isolated from other countries, whereas the United States has two countries immediately boardering it. I think this makes a good case for "What works in one place may not work in another."

Lets say we pass laws that reduce the number of legal guns in both countries, either by confiscation or prohibitive restrictions. In Australia, it would be pretty hard to smuggle them in, right? The only way to get them into the country would be by water or air. Both of which are easy to patrol. Smugglers could try shipping containers, but that would be pretty tough if their security scans are anything like what we have. The only other option would be to manufacture them yourself, which would be near impossible to do and make it anything practical.

Now take the U.S. We have major problems with our sourthern boarder with Mexico, and it's a lot easier to smuggle in guns (and drugs too) to the U.S. The biggest causes of gun violence here is drug and gang related. We don't have tons of mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook. As I pointed out, the city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws, but one of the highest gun crime murder rates. That already demonstrates that it's not legal gun owners committing crimes and is one part of the arguement that having more laws will only disarm the law abiding public and not the criminals.  You spread those kinds of laws into a nationwide ban, and the gang bangers and drug runners will get their guns from Mexico. Considering our history with the southern boarder, it is not a far fetched outcome. So that's the other reason why more gun laws wouldn't make us much safer.

So now what about these mass shootings? I've already made the point that these people would likely find other, potentially more dangerous ways to cause harm. I stick to that, even more now after thinking about it. In most of these cases, the shooter(s) plan these things out way in advance. It's rarely a "heat of the moment" case. They spend their time collecting said guns and ammo, trying to stay under the radar, and waiting for the right time to act. And then there's ones like the Colorado theater shooter that also went to the effort of boobytrapping his apartment with explosives to cause even more destruction after he was stopped (which thankfully was discovered before anything was set off). If they are spending that much time to get the guns and ammo, why would it be beyond reason to expect them to find other ways if those guns and ammo weren't available?

So going back to what I quoted earlier:

I'm glad I don't need a gun to make me feel safe in this country, because I don't have to worry that someone else might have one.

Perhaps that is more or less true in your country, but not in ours. Some places maybe, but certainly not the big cities where most crimes happen.

[Yip]

...That already demonstrates that it's not legal gun owners committing crimes and is one part of the arguement that having more laws will only disarm the law abiding public and not the criminals.

yeah... because there is absolutely no overlap between those two groups. [/sarcasm]  You know, if you didn't use this sort of fallacious language, I might take your argument more seriously.

Also, I may be mistaken, but I've never heard of any problem with guns being smuggled into the US from Mexico. From my understanding the problem is usually the other way around.

[Narei Mooncatt]

In the grand scheme of things, there is very little overlap. Have you heard about a rash of legal gun owners going out and murdering people (self defense aside, of course)? I haven't. There are bigger fish to fry right now.

Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.

[Yip]

In the grand scheme of things, there is very little overlap. Have you heard about a rash of legal gun owners going out and murdering people (self defense aside, of course)? I haven't. There are bigger fish to fry right now.

You're equivocating. "law abiding citizen" and "legal gun owner" are not equivalent. In fact, the two are not even related; the fact that someone legally owns a gun says little to nothing about whether or not they otherwise abide by the law. My complaint is with how just about every pro-gun argument I've heard acts like the only people who break the law are those that do it habitually. This is so far from true as to make such arguments seem completely dishonest to me, particularly when this flaw is pointed out but they still keep going back to these same arguments.

Note: I'm not even necessarily anti-gun. I'm actually not sure where I stand on these issues, but I -hate- dishonest arguments.

Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.

Currently, there are problems with guns being smuggled from the US into Mexico. Clearly for this to be the case, there must be a demand for guns in Mexico that is not met by guns manufactured there. Therefore, I'd say your scenario sounds a bit far fetched.

[McMajik]

Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.

Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>

[Narei Mooncatt]

Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.

Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>

I said when the supply of guns in the U.S. dries up. Then getting them from outside the country becomes the viable option.

[McMajik]

Yes, right now we don't have a problem smuggling guns from Mexico. You do have to admit it would be pretty easy to do so compared to a country like Australia. Just like with the massive drug trade, a ban of guns is likely to lead to a demand for illegal guns from there, or perhaps Canada to some extent, when said guns are no longer available for theft or the black market here.

Surely this arguement invalidates your state-by-state comparison of gun crime rates earlier. I mean, transporting between states would be even easier than between countries >.>

I said when the supply of guns in the U.S. dries up. Then getting them from outside the country becomes the viable option.

It's also a harder option. Surely squeezing the supply is a good thing? And if there is a problem with guns being smuggled from the US ~to~ mexico, they don't have a massive supply to smuggle back in themselves, do they? Pretty sure Canada has stricter gun laws than the US too. At the very least, it becomes more expensive to get them illegally.