Is the violence more about mental health and less about gun control?

KingGorilla wrote:

And how? Real world, researched backed, and how?

Researched backed? All but impossible given current conditions. But that's because the pro-gun crowd have made it virtually impossible to do said research since the mid-90s, either by getting lawmakers to outright ban it or by cutting off any funding for it. I wonder why...

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year studying transportation safety and figuring out ways to improve safety, efficiency, and user experiences and we spend effectively nothing on firearms safety. The kicker is about the same number of people die in traffic accidents as die by firearms.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have uttered this before. Our gun laws are as open as they have been in the past 60+ years, and our crimed rates are at their lowest in the past 60+ years.

And?

People act like there's a magical link between guns, gun ownership, and crime. There isn't.

If there was the US should be the safest nation on the planet because we have some 300+ million firearms floating around the country.* But we're not. We're the most violent industrialized nation and even give the developing world a good run.

However, your question could be definitively answered if research was allowed to be conducted. But facts are so troubling for some people.

* Embarrassingly, we don't really know how many firearms we have in this country. The agency we task with managing firearms is prohibited from knowing this information...

KingGorilla wrote:

By all of the experts of that era, the US should be like a Mad Max movie right now, but we aren't.

According to every firearms expert we should be living in a world free of crime given our gun ownership stats and their mantra that guns reduce crime. But we aren't. Why is that?

KingGorilla wrote:

Assault rifles, body armor, drum magazines, extended clips were illegal in the 90's, didn't keep those out of the hands of bank robbers and gangs. The 18th amendment kept the US dry, right?

And how many incidents of assault rifle wielding, body armor wearing, extended mag using bank robbers did we have in the 90s? One?

KingGorilla wrote:

Licensing to buy or sell a gun from the ATF is a great idea. I love that idea. I have no damn clue how to fund that idea.

Really? How about a tax on firearm and ammunition purchases? Hell, how about a tax on any firearm-related accessory? How about Chris Rock's every-bullet-costs- $500 method?

Even better, keep our existing system of FFLs and simply raise the application fee from $200 to $10,000, $20,000, or $50,000 and watch the number of FFLs in the country drop to a much more manageable number.

I'd be much less concerned about FFLs selling firearms to criminal proxies if they knew the ATF would be up in their ass several times a year versus having an agent drop by every five years or so as it is now.

And a fantastic side effect of having an FFL cost a much more reasonable amount would be that the gun dealer would have to raise his prices. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says people have the right to cheap arms.

KingGorilla wrote:

They have a responsibility when it comes to what happens when their customers use their product.

Sadly, nope. The NRA has successfully lobbied Congress to exclude everyone associated with firearms, from manufacturers down, from civil law suits.

KingGorilla wrote:

I beg of you to tell me how we can get a MADD or SADD level campaign and lobby to combat the NRA lobby.

First and foremost, we need information. We need actual stats on whose buying firearms, who has firearms, how effective or ineffective they are in preventing crimes, how they are used in crimes, how legal firearms become illegal firearms, etc.

Right now, the pro-gun crowd has successfully cut off all research into firearms and how they are used except the occasional research project that's done under the banner of public health.

If we could get that information then we could actually have an adult conversation about firearms. Then the discussion could focus on facts instead of relying on the emotion of "firearms make me feel safer."

We could also rationally measure the contribution of firearms to society. If they prevent loads of crime and save people from getting assaulted or killed, then they get credit for that. But we know they are used in hundreds of thousands of crime and kill tens of thousands of people every year. If they have a net positive effect on society we can figure out where to go from there. If they have a net negative effect on society (which is likely) them we can look at amending the constitution.

Of course, the $64,000 question is how do we actually make that happen. Honestly, I don't know the answer. But I think the first step is to question every baseless assertion the pro-gun crowd makes and continually raise the issue of gun violence.

KingGorilla wrote:

Licensing to buy or sell a gun from the ATF is a great idea. I love that idea. I have no damn clue how to fund that idea.

Personally I would like to see some of the defense spending (which is over funded IMHO) go towards this.

I like Chris Rock's idea. Let people own guns. Just charge $1000s per bullet.

Nevin73 wrote:

I like Chris Rock's idea. Let people own guns. Just charge $1000s per bullet.

Or, only allow private citizens to buy non-lethal ammunition. Seems to me that would solve a bunch of problems. Gun owners get to keep their guns and no one gets shot and killed.

If you want ammo for hunting then you're going to need to go through and extensive screening process to be able to buy ammunition. Use technology to make all ammunition traceable to the buyer & seller that way.

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Bear wrote:

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Let's say it did... then what? Outlaw baseball bats? dirty looks? People that want to cause harm are still going to do it. They'll find the next expedient item to do so. The world wont miraculously become a better place.

ranalin wrote:
Bear wrote:

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Let's say it did... then what? Outlaw baseball bats? dirty looks? People that want to cause harm are still going to do it. They'll find the next expedient item to do so. The world wont miraculously become a better place.

I don't like this argument because it goes both ways. Are there any weapons that shouldn't be legal for a civilian? Most people think so, so clearly that means we have to find an actual line and use it.

SixteenBlue wrote:
ranalin wrote:
Bear wrote:

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Let's say it did... then what? Outlaw baseball bats? dirty looks? People that want to cause harm are still going to do it. They'll find the next expedient item to do so. The world wont miraculously become a better place.

I don't like this argument because it goes both ways. Are there any weapons that shouldn't be legal for a civilian? Most people think so, so clearly that means we have to find an actual line and use it.

but all the political will on either side of the argument wont go for that. They want to push it completely to one side or the other.

That's a rather big assumption. Most of the gun-control-supporting people I know just want to start with being able to collect actual data on what's happening, and are incredibly frustrated at the NRA's opposition to the minimum work that must be done to formulate sound public policy.

When you contrast "There should be gun control" and "There should be no gun control", it's true that they're in complete opposition. But it's also a stupid kind of truth.

ranalin wrote:
Bear wrote:

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Let's say it did... then what? Outlaw baseball bats? dirty looks? People that want to cause harm are still going to do it. They'll find the next expedient item to do so. The world wont miraculously become a better place.

Let's say that each bullet costs $1000? Well then going on a rampage would be a very expensive exercise. Not many people, particularly those with mental health issues, could afford loading up a 30-round magazine.

Hypatian wrote:

That's a rather big assumption. Most of the gun-control-supporting people I know just want to start with being able to collect actual data on what's happening, and are incredibly frustrated at the NRA's opposition to the minimum work that must be done to formulate sound public policy.

When you contrast "There should be gun control" and "There should be no gun control", it's true that they're in complete opposition. But it's also a stupid kind of truth.

I know more of the other kind.

ranalin wrote:

I know more of the other kind.

And yet you didn't answer Hyp's question.

Are you against the ATF collecting information about firearms so more informed policy decisions can be made and, if so, why?

ranalin wrote:
Bear wrote:

But I think we all know that'll never happen

Let's say it did... then what? Outlaw baseball bats? dirty looks? People that want to cause harm are still going to do it. They'll find the next expedient item to do so. The world wont miraculously become a better place.

You're right, violence is never going to disappear but can't we at least agree that the number of people being shot is way too f*cking high? Way higher than we should be willing to accept? Based on the FBI's statistics, that means almost 9000 people (8,775 to be exact) might still be alive. If we reduced that number by half and you've still saved 4000 lives. Is our answer really to shrug our shoulders and say "sh*t happens"? We've got to strive to be better than that.

On thing I am absolutely positive of, no one will ever walk into a school and KILL twenty kids with a baseball bat. No one is going into a movie theater with an sword and killing 12 people. Sure, they might kill or severely injure several, but we won't be dealing with a mass homicides.

Bear wrote:

On thing I am absolutely positive of, no one will ever walk into a school and KILL twenty kids with a baseball bat. No one is going into a movie theater with an sword and killing 12 people. Sure, they might kill or severely injure several, but we won't be dealing with a mass homicides.

We need to define what number makes it "mass". More than 5? 10?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihaba...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-k...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulago_...

You're point is still valid, we do need to find a way to minimize the mass murders. My minor point is that yes, you can walk into a school and KILL [mass murder body count #] with [not a firearm weapon].

Please note, I am not attacking your position nor saying its futile, I just wanted to make that minor correction, that yes, you can do a mass killing spry without using a firearm.

Bear wrote:

Based on the FBI's statistics, that means almost 9000 people (8,775 to be exact) might still be alive. If we reduced that number by half and you've still saved 4000 lives. Is our answer really to shrug our shoulders and say "sh*t happens"? We've got to strive to be better than that.

Don't forget that another 19,000 people or so commit suicide using a firearm each year. And that 127,500 people commit a robbery with a firearm and 138,000 people commit an aggravated assault with a firearm each year.

Knowing that, firearms must really do a lot of good for people to tolerate their insanely high social costs.

I mean we invaded two countries and spent $2 trillion when just 3,000 people died, so we must be ready to spend almost anything to lower these levels of death and destruction.

Edwin wrote:

Please note, I am not attacking your position nor saying its futile, I just wanted to make that minor correction, that yes, you can do a mass killing spry without using a firearm.

Then back that up with fact, please. Show me other attacks were someone with a knife or sharp stick or whatever killed 12 people and wounded 59 before being neutralized.

Do you really think those suicides wouldn't happen without guns? I can understand a subset of robberies/assaults not occurring without a gun but even that is probably fairly small.

Also Edwin did not say "with a sharp stick" for f*ck's sake. He said without a firearm. One quick answer is using explosives made from legal chemicals.

You have some good points to make but you're also throwing out a lot of ridiculous stuff here.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do you really think those suicides wouldn't happen without guns? I can understand a subset of robberies/assaults not occurring without a gun but even that is probably fairly small.

Yes, I think a decent number of those suicides attempts wouldn't end in a fatality if those people didn't have easy access to firearms. It's easy to screw up a suicide by not cutting in the right place or having someone find you before the pills take effect. There's not much chance of that happening when you paint the wall behind you with your brains. Just pulling the trigger is a lot easier for people than other methods. That's why so many people use firearms (not to mention that firearms are designed to kill).

Why do you assume that the number of robberies/assaults would only decrease by a small amount without firearms? Guns are fantastic confidence boosters for a criminal because they know people are going to comply.

The research out there shows that people act differently--more aggressively--when they're armed, like the study I linked to before about people who carried firearms being much more likely to be shot during a confrontation. That number went up even more if they had the opportunity to resist. That's because guns give you a false sense of confidence. Replace a gun with a knife and a decent chunk of potential criminals aren't going to want to take on people or groups of people that they would if they were strapped.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Also Edwin did not say "with a sharp stick" for f*ck's sake. He said without a firearm. One quick answer is using explosives made from legal chemicals.

I was simply pointing out that there'd have to be some serious machete action going on for someone to come remotely close to the body count and casualties that are easily achievable with firearms. And they'd likely never, ever get that close because they'd be swarmed.

Bombs aren't really aren't a real answer. For one thing, to match the number of causalities from Colorado, you'd basically be talking about a car bomb. The number of people who could build one is dramatically smaller than the number of people that can get access to firearms and even buying the materials needed to make a bomb big enough would very likely end in an uncomfortable conversation with some very stern looking FBI agents.

SixteenBlue wrote:

You have some good points to make but you're also throwing out a lot of ridiculous stuff here.

What am I saying that's ridiculous?

The attitude I'm getting from folks is that it's pointless to even talk about doing something about firearms unless restricting them will completely change human nature, end crime and aggression, and usher in a new era of world peace.

I'd prefer to talk about firearm regulation in the same way we talk about other societal issues. Do we insist that we can't talk about fuel efficiency until we have a car that can run on water? No. We talk about plans to incrementally increase the fuel efficiency of existing cars. We don't expect a Prius to solve global warming, but we recognize that it's doing less damage to our society and that that is a good thing.

It's should be the same with firearms. Would firearm regulations be acceptable if they saved the lives of 1,000 people a year? 2,000? 5,000? Would regulation be acceptable if it reduced violent crimes by 10,000 or 50,000 incidents a year. What's the number that changes peoples' minds?

That's why I get frustrated with people who say "well, people will still kill each other, so what's the point?" The point is that firearms is the only thing we treat as an absolute. We don't say "well, people will always steal from each other, so what's the point in having police?" Instead, we invest in law enforcement, buy a security system for our home, be more vigilant and feel great when the crime rate drops as a result of our actions.

OG_slinger wrote:
ranalin wrote:

I know more of the other kind.

And yet you didn't answer Hyp's question.

Are you against the ATF collecting information about firearms so more informed policy decisions can be made and, if so, why?

He didnt ask a question, but i thought it was obvious that i was against this. Like i said i dont want to have general policy based on the f*ck ups of a few. I dont trust any government body at this point regardless of affiliations to be fair and unbiased. I'd be ok with tighter restrictions and stronger pelalties, but i draw the line at collecting information part.

OG_slinger wrote:

That's why I get frustrated with people who say "well, people will still kill each other, so what's the point?" The point is that firearms is the only thing we treat as an absolute. We don't say "well, people will always steal from each other, so what's the point in having police?" Instead, we invest in law enforcement, buy a security system for our home, be more vigilant and feel great when the crime rate drops as a result of our actions.

Because it is an absolute, just like our free speech, and being free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Make them more expensive, make the penalties for using them wrongly or acquiring them wrongly more severe but dont invade my privacy even more in doing so.

OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Please note, I am not attacking your position nor saying its futile, I just wanted to make that minor correction, that yes, you can do a mass killing spree without using a firearm.

Then back that up with fact, please. Show me other attacks were someone with a knife or sharp stick or whatever killed 12 people and wounded 59 before being neutralized.

FACT:
According to the FBI, the general definition of spree murder (mass homicide as Bear put it) is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder.

Source:
Morton, Robert J., and Mark A. Hilts (eds.) Serial Murder – Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Every single one of those links I posted earlier meets and exceeds that definition set forth by the FBI.

To recap:

Bear says there can't be knife spree murders. I show that there can be. You say knife spree killings can never be as big as firearm spree killings. No one argued that knife spree killings were.

OG the assault weapon is a negligible issue compared with cheap handguns, or even knives used in Homicides. The FBI and DOJ lump shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, etc into one group for a simple reason.

Handguns are cheap, they are plentiful, and they are easily concealed. You can buy 5 or 6 snub nose revolvers for the price of most assault rifles (2 or 3 for the cost of an AK-47). More to the point crime committed with handguns outstripes all other guns by that same factor.

You are focusing on the minority here. If our endgame is substantial impact on gun crime and gun related homicides, the biggest dent is from handguns. And you don't accomplish that with do nothing bans, Chicago, LA, and Washington DC tried.

And here is what I still want to see investigated. How in the hell do we go in 15 years from a million and a half non violent gun crimes, to under 500k? How do we go from about 18,000 gun related homicides to 11,000? What factor that all the experts ignored let to that serious change? The answer to that question is our most important one right now.

I am a bit scared of returning to the legal thinking from the 70's, 80's, 90's as a solution.

Fun WSJ Piece on it, with lamentable Freakonomics reference.

Edwin wrote:

To recap:

Bear says there can't be knife spree murders. I show that there can be. You say knife spree killings can never be as big as firearm spree killings. No one argued that knife spree killings were.

I can agree with that. When I say "mass" I'm not thinking in terms of two, I'm thinking more like six or more. I think even two should be unacceptable but for the purpose of argument I'm fine with it.

In a scenario like Colorado, it's entirely conceivable to me that some guy could come into a movie theater with a steak knife and kill 2 or 3 people before everyone figured out what was going on. The likely reaction from the crowd would either be to run out or to try and disarm the attacker. I believe that in a large group of people there's going to be a fair number of people who think "I'm taking the knife from this asshole". I also think it's safe to assume you're not going to get stabbed in the back and die while running out of the theater whereas a shooter would very likely pull the trigger as long as he had rounds.

With a Glock, human behavior dictates that those people are either running out or hiding behind their seats hoping they don't die.

ranalin wrote:

I dont trust any government body at this point regardless of affiliations to be fair and unbiased. I'd be ok with tighter restrictions and stronger pelalties, but i draw the line at collecting information part.

Can you give a reason that you don't trust "any government body"? That seems awfully broad.

I'm very surprised at the idea of being okay with tighter restrictions but being against collecting information. If you don't collect information, you can't tell if the restrictions are doing any good. (Or, more generally: Without measurement, it is impossible to determine whether the implementation of public policy actually moves you closer or further away from your policy goals.)

Collecting data is the absolute first thing that must be done, otherwise it's difficult to do anything at all. At that point you're working entirely on anecdotes, which is a recipe for disaster. (And, of course: that's where we are right now with regards to public policy regarding guns in the United States.)

I was at a Disaster Preparedness Orientation meeting for Maryland volunteer organizations yesterday and something the coordinator/trainer said really struck me. It was that in a disaster situation, the absolute worst thing a well-intentioned and motivated individual could do is to "auto deploy". Folks who run into burning buildings become casualties.

She further went on to say that the purpose behind disaster readiness and volunteer coordination was to come up with coordinated disaster response in which skilled and logical resources are deployed to maximal effect while minimizing collateral casualty events as a result of "piss poor planning". This got me thinking of precisely what would have happened if a bunch of dubiously qualified armed civilians were in that movie theater in Colorado, at the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt, or even the Sikh Temple shooting.

I completely understand the impulse to "make a difference". Heck, I'm volunteering my time and money with Rotary and Maryland Search and Rescue, so I'm certainly not going to advocate "doing nothing". But the showing up to a tornado site with a pickup truck full of old clothes more often than not results in nothing more than more trash to remove. And arming yourself in a dark movie theater carries with it externalities quite a bit messier.

Paleocon wrote:

It was that in a disaster situation, the absolute worst thing a well-intentioned and motivated individual could do is to "auto deploy". Folks who run into burning buildings become casualties.

I'd demand statistics for that assertion. Sometimes people need to be rescued and there are no professionals around. Sometimes that results in the deaths of rescuers, sometimes it doesn't. It's always going to be a judgment call made in a split second.

Bear wrote:
Edwin wrote:

To recap:

Bear says there can't be knife spree murders. I show that there can be. You say knife spree killings can never be as big as firearm spree killings. No one argued that knife spree killings were.

I can agree with that. When I say "mass" I'm not thinking in terms of two, I'm thinking more like six or more. I think even two should be unacceptable but for the purpose of argument I'm fine with it.

In a scenario like Colorado, it's entirely conceivable to me that some guy could come into a movie theater with a steak knife and kill 2 or 3 people before everyone figured out what was going on. The likely reaction from the crowd would either be to run out or to try and disarm the attacker. I believe that in a large group of people there's going to be a fair number of people who think "I'm taking the knife from this asshole". I also think it's safe to assume you're not going to get stabbed in the back and die while running out of the theater whereas a shooter would very likely pull the trigger as long as he had rounds.

With a Glock, human behavior dictates that those people are either running out or hiding behind their seats hoping they don't die.

Actually, the numbers say otherwise.

There have been many cases of knife sprees in Japan. One I linked to above where the guy killed 7 people and injured 7 more in the middle of Akihabara in the middle of the day. He just walked in with a hunting knife and started stabbing. It's a huge problem for them - some estimate knife crime in Japan has gone up 40% since 2007. Or here are some knife crime facts about the UK. Europe has a similar problem in countries where gun control is strong.

I'm sorry, but people just use what's to hand, and are more than capable of doing some pretty awful stuff with it. Limiting guns is only part of the equation. If you don't start doing something about the problems with the users, you don't get very far.

Bear wrote:
Edwin wrote:

To recap:

Bear says there can't be knife spree murders. I show that there can be. You say knife spree killings can never be as big as firearm spree killings. No one argued that knife spree killings were.

I can agree with that. When I say "mass" I'm not thinking in terms of two, I'm thinking more like six or more. I think even two should be unacceptable but for the purpose of argument I'm fine with it.

In a scenario like Colorado, it's entirely conceivable to me that some guy could come into a movie theater with a steak knife and kill 2 or 3 people before everyone figured out what was going on. The likely reaction from the crowd would either be to run out or to try and disarm the attacker. I believe that in a large group of people there's going to be a fair number of people who think "I'm taking the knife from this asshole". I also think it's safe to assume you're not going to get stabbed in the back and die while running out of the theater whereas a shooter would very likely pull the trigger as long as he had rounds.

With a Glock, human behavior dictates that those people are either running out or hiding behind their seats hoping they don't die.

I agree and never argued or even implied against what you are saying. Of course it's easier to kill more people with a gun. Guns are some of the most efficient tools ever made (depending on make, model, accessories, condition and training). I also agree that considering a mass killing >2 is kind of weak sauce on the FBI's part. For me, I would consider >4 to be considered mass homicide. Only because I forgot what comes after of quadruple.

If for some dumb reason a central database was made and some how every firearm that ever existed/will exist went on there it would do nothing to stop straw purchases.
I buy a gun and register it in the database.
I go home and scrape the serial number off the receiver
I sell the gun to someone
I report the gun as lost or stolen.

Please enlighten me how a database has helped.

And the whole "gun show loophole" just proves people who bring it up are ignorant of firearm laws, and probably shouldn't be in the business of coming up with new laws.

Multra wrote:

If for some dumb reason a central database was made and some how every firearm that ever existed/will exist went on there it would do nothing to stop straw purchases.
I buy a gun and register it in the database.
I go home and scrape the serial number off the receiver
I sell the gun to someone
I report the gun as lost or stolen.

Please enlighten me how a database has helped.

And the whole "gun show loophole" just proves people who bring it up are ignorant of firearm laws, and probably shouldn't be in the business of coming up with new laws.

It isn't that you buy one gun. A database would help track people who buy 20 guns that conveniently get stolen.

On a different note...I'm guessing the shootings in NYC put to rest the idea that armed civilians in Aurora would have helped the situation. Trained police officers shot and injured 9 bystanders in a shoot-out with a suspect. It was a clear day. I believe that had civilians with guns been in that movie theater the casualty count would have tripled.

Multra wrote:

If for some dumb reason a central database was made and some how every firearm that ever existed/will exist went on there it would do nothing to stop straw purchases.
I buy a gun and register it in the database.
I go home and scrape the serial number off the receiver
I sell the gun to someone
I report the gun as lost or stolen.

Please enlighten me how a database has helped.

And the whole "gun show loophole" just proves people who bring it up are ignorant of firearm laws, and probably shouldn't be in the business of coming up with new laws.

This guy you sell the gun to has some manner of fanatical loyalty to you? In no way he testifies or speaks to the police after apprehension after the fact?

You basically said that if you don a ski mask you can get away with anything. Or that by hiring a hit-man, you can get away with murder.