As predicted Obama politicizes tragedy with calls for gun control

[keck553]

Could be, I thought this thread might be ok. Yes Obama is not going to introduce anything, its clear most Americans would oppose it. What I would be really interested in talking about is not jingo and catch-phrases, but real data about policies and results.

Pandering drives me crazy.

Concerning "real data," I think that would be exceedingly difficult because people tend to be very resourceful. If one tool is taken away, they'll just pick up an alternate. I also have concerns about disparity of force concerning women. I think they have a right to have a tool that "equalizes" the disparity. I suppose that could apply to men also, especially elderly men.

Well if we could push a button and instantly eliminate all guns except those four you mentioned, I reckon our problem would be solved. But those guns are not the issue. Those causing most murders, are generally the less costly, less durable weapons - the so called 'Saturday night specials'. These will break down quickly. Inexpensive semiautomatics dominate the list of guns more frequently used in crime, and are the top of the list when you consider the ratio of weapon used vs total availability of the weapon. The idea is you stop manufacturing guns, and the cheap ones get confiscated and destroyed, or stop break down over time. Then, criminals who break into your house have less access to the cheap street-thug grade weapons, but still have to contend with you and your higher quality 100-year old guns.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...320383,00.html

I am no fan of cheap junk guns, but they do give me one advantage - they malfunction frequently. Oddly, I do not use my gun collection for self-defense for fear of the police banging them up if I had to use one for that purpose. I mostly use an inexpensive Polish p64 (9mm Markarov) as my carry gun. It's small, reliable, built like a tank. Some will say it's underpowered, but again, statistically at least - most weapons drawn in self defense are not discharged. I'm not also a fan of hi capacity "spray and pray" firearms either. If 6 rounds is not enough in a normal situation, then I'm willing to bet you're not deploying proper situational awareness.

I also recommend highly - and I can't emphasize this enough - that if a person is going to carry a deadly weapon that they should complete at least 40 hours of self defense training and discharge at least 500 rounds from their carry weapon under the supervision of a credible expert. Mostly for the protection of the person who chooses to have a weapon for self defense, protection from self inflicted accidents, protection from litigation, an awareness of the psychological effects of shooting another human being, and most of all - to develop some knowledge and proficiency to use a weapon with the proper verbal commands without harming an innocent bystander or scaring the crap out of them. A person deploying self defense in public could appear to be the perpetrator very easily. Whether this should be made law is controversial not only because of the 2nd amendment, but also because such a law would be biased against economically challenged folks, mostly minorities who may need to defend themselves more than the middle class. Again, personal responsibility is the key here, but our society has been weaned off that concept in the past 30 years or so. So it's a challenge for sure.

I can't say whether it would pass judicial review, but the plan I'm proposing does not require mass confiscation from law abiding permit holders. It requires confiscation of all weapons found on criminals when stopped for other reasons, or any weapon incidentally found in the home of a non-permit holder if the home is being searched for other reasons. Those weapons could even be destroyed, driving the overall supply down, the cost up, and ratio of ownership favoring the law-abiders.

It would only work as a state law. Although the feds do impose a tax stamp for NFA firearms...so it might be possible legislatively. I think politicians are more interested in their jobs than their country at this point though, so my expectatiosn are quite low (assuming I believe that such a law would be a 'good thing.')

Sure enough, again I will mention I doubt it would pass judicial review, I'm not commenting on that. What I'm commenting on is what seems to work. Again I'm not proposing a ban on handguns, I'm proposing a ban on the manufacture of handguns. Or, seriously limiting the amount gun manufacturers can churn out in a year. Other options could be mandating the level of quality (needs to be high - putting them economically out of reach for many street thugs) or a minimum cost or tax on the purchase. The tax could be reimbursed with proof of extensive safety training, etc. The point is to have less guns overall, and shift the guns into the hands of those who are more responsible. We have this type of situation here - tons of Canadians own guns, mostly long guns. But very few crimes are committed with handguns because there simply aren't that many around.

This is interesting. I sold a Walther PPK to a gun dealer about 15 years ago. About 7 years ago I got a call from a Canadian agent who identified himself as working jointly with our BATF. He wanted to know who I sold my Walther to (apparently it wound up in Vancouver probably related to some crime). I have no idea how many hands it went through to wind up in Canada, or perhaps it was stolen from someone, I have no clue. At any rate, I doubt legislation would pass to limit the manufacure of handguns in the US. The manufactures would simply move offshore creating even more unemployment. Not sure this is the answer either.

Some countries simply ban or severely limit ammunition. You can buy as much as you want at the range but you need to use it all, things like that.

Washington State used to have a law that when you purchase ammo or reloading componenets you had to present ID and the dealer had to keep a log of the buyer and what they purchased. Only FFL dealers could mail order ammo. I think the law was found unconstitutional and abandoned, though I could be wrong about the reason. But seeing that my state is heavily democrat, I'm willing to bet it was settled in the courts. At any rate, it no longer exists. I don't think it detered crime one iota. Again, such a scheme deployed by the federal government would violate the 10th amendment, so it probably wouldn't hold up in court.

Every phrase you can imagine, has been said.

You have to admit the hyperbole is on both sides.

However the facts show us that murders are not committed in this way. The vast majority are committed with concealed, cheap, handguns.

I'd like to see new data on this. In the past year or so of reading local news, it seems most criminals have been armed with Glocks, Sigs and the like. Probably stolen.

I still think the best alternative is to put criminals in prison. Most crime is committed by re-offenders.

[teddyv]

Best I could find right now.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-.../11643-eng.pdf

This is based on Canadian stats from 2000-2010.

Probably the most relevant chart is on Page 38 (Chart 2.8) which states that, where weapons were used in the commission of homicide in domestic violence among 'intimate partners'; stabbing is the most common (~41%), following by shooting (~21%), then strangulation/suffocation/drowning weapon (~19%), beating (~15%) and then 'other'.

[keck553]

Best I could find right now.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-.../11643-eng.pdf

This is based on Canadian stats from 2000-2010.

Probably the most relevant chart is on Page 38 (Chart 2.8) which states that, where weapons were used in the commission of homicide in domestic violence among 'intimate partners'; stabbing is the most common (~41%), following by shooting (~21%), then strangulation/suffocation/drowning weapon (~19%), beating (~15%) and then 'other'.

So banning "saturday night specials" just changes the tools used, not the act.

Can you imagine stabbing another person? I can't even image that act. It's abhorrent to me. I think my biggest issue is not the weapon, but rather the violence. I can't understand it. We really need to focus on this disregard for human life rather than the impliments they use. No matter what we get rid of, these evil people are still around.

[teddyv]

I was responding to what you asked earlier:

it would be interesting to find some data about the impliments used in these crimes.

This is a different issue:

I think my biggest issue is not the weapon, but rather the violence. I can't understand it.

[keck553]

I was responding to what you asked earlier:

Yes, thank you. I edited my reply.

This is a different issue:

I know. It was commentary.

[Watchman]

I just came across this online and haven't had the chance to read all of it, but for what it is worth Gun Facts seems to be well written and researched; however, I reserve the right to change my opinion after further review!

W

[teddyv]

So banning "saturday night specials" just changes the tools used, not the act.

Absolutely. But I believe that less guns would probably lead to lower mortality rates. It does not solve the underlying problem of the offender, but it probably offers a 'better' outcome for the victim.

Can you imagine stabbing another person? I can't even image that act. It's abhorrent to me. I think my biggest issue is not the weapon, but rather the violence. I can't understand it.

No I can't imagine that either, but I suspect we all have the capacity.

We really need to focus on this disregard for human life rather than the impliments they use. No matter what we get rid of, these evil people are still around.

From what I hear from my parole officer BIL, this is a lot of the focus within Corrections. One, of course, could argue on the philosophical underpinnings of modifying such behaviours. But that's another discussion.

[NHL Fever]

Pandering drives me crazy.

Concerning "real data," I think that would be exceedingly difficult because people tend to be very resourceful. If one tool is taken away, they'll just pick up an alternate. I also have concerns about disparity of force concerning women. I think they have a right to have a tool that "equalizes" the disparity. I suppose that could apply to men also, especially elderly men.

Stories about old people fighting off criminals are heart-warming, but the facts do not support that as a trend. Large studies have show that, where the defending person is armed, they are more likely, not less likely, to die.

For example a study from Philadelphia, regarding carrying guns (second link has abstract):
"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...get-shot-more/

And this Oxford study regarding guns in the home:

"Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

I am no fan of cheap junk guns, but they do give me one advantage - they malfunction frequently. Oddly, I do not use my gun collection for self-defense for fear of the police banging them up if I had to use one for that purpose. I mostly use an inexpensive Polish p64 (9mm Markarov) as my carry gun. It's small, reliable, built like a tank. Some will say it's underpowered, but again, statistically at least - most weapons drawn in self defense are not discharged. I'm not also a fan of hi capacity "spray and pray" firearms either. If 6 rounds is not enough in a normal situation, then I'm willing to bet you're not deploying proper situational awareness.

I also recommend highly - and I can't emphasize this enough - that if a person is going to carry a deadly weapon that they should complete at least 40 hours of self defense training and discharge at least 500 rounds from their carry weapon under the supervision of a credible expert. Mostly for the protection of the person who chooses to have a weapon for self defense, protection from self inflicted accidents, protection from litigation, an awareness of the psychological effects of shooting another human being, and most of all - to develop some knowledge and proficiency to use a weapon with the proper verbal commands without harming an innocent bystander or scaring the crap out of them. A person deploying self defense in public could appear to be the perpetrator very easily. Whether this should be made law is controversial not only because of the 2nd amendment, but also because such a law would be biased against economically challenged folks, mostly minorities who may need to defend themselves more than the middle class. Again, personal responsibility is the key here, but our society has been weaned off that concept in the past 30 years or so. So it's a challenge for sure.

Well yes, cheap guns are not as good. They are however, the most often used in crimes relative to their distribution. So a handgun manufacturing ban, would disproportionately reduce the effective supply of cheap guns vs expensive ones, a skewing that would favor the people you want to have guns vs those that you do not. The issue is guns, further the issue is carry, further the issue is handgun carry, further the issue is concealed handgun carry. I think we need to focus on the problem - concealed carry is the most obvious target.

This is interesting. I sold a Walther PPK to a gun dealer about 15 years ago. About 7 years ago I got a call from a Canadian agent who identified himself as working jointly with our BATF. He wanted to know who I sold my Walther to (apparently it wound up in Vancouver probably related to some crime). I have no idea how many hands it went through to wind up in Canada, or perhaps it was stolen from someone, I have no clue. At any rate, I doubt legislation would pass to limit the manufacure of handguns in the US. The manufactures would simply move offshore creating even more unemployment. Not sure this is the answer either.

Well this touches on the argument that if you ban the manufacture of handguns, they will just get smuggled in from other countries. But against when tested against real-life examples, this does not bear out. For example most of the guns criminals have in Canada are smuggled from the US, or in some way come from the US. However, we still have a far lower use of firearms in crimes, and far lower rate of murders overall, contrary to what pro-gun advocates would predict. So neither smuggling nor home-making have succeeded in arming our criminals to a degree even remotely close to what they have access to in the US, with widespread legal availability. The gun limits are therefore not perfect, but they are effective, and the predicted criminal response has not materialized.

Washington State used to have a law that when you purchase ammo or reloading componenets you had to present ID and the dealer had to keep a log of the buyer and what they purchased. Only FFL dealers could mail order ammo. I think the law was found unconstitutional and abandoned, though I could be wrong about the reason. But seeing that my state is heavily democrat, I'm willing to bet it was settled in the courts. At any rate, it no longer exists. I don't think it detered crime one iota. Again, such a scheme deployed by the federal government would violate the 10th amendment, so it probably wouldn't hold up in court.

Well these laws are always interesting, because some american cities have very strict laws on handgun possession and carry, and apparently maintain those laws in the face of SCOTUS rulings. This gets back to how unclear the SCOTUS ruling really is.

I'd like to see new data on this. In the past year or so of reading local news, it seems most criminals have been armed with Glocks, Sigs and the like. Probably stolen.

That may be what you remember, and certainly those weapons are used. However the most common, are weapons such as those listed in the TIME article, according to the real numbers. Policies limiting the most common weapons would presumably make the largest difference.



I may need to dig around to find the stats, but I have looked carefully at many stats in the past, and the info is there for all the questions you are asking. The short form of the answers:
Is domestic violence similar between US and other countries? - yes its fairly similar with some like Canada and UK
Do domestic incidents turn fatal more often in the US? - Yes, in a given domestic incident, you are much more likely to die in the US compared to other countries
Do policies of gun control change the weapon of choice? - Yes, in countries with less guns, there are more crimes with knives
Doesn't this mean criminals just shift weapons? - No, the reason knives make up a larger portion is because when one weapon frequency goes down, but definition the others must go up. The absolute number in those countries is much lower. The risk of dying by knife attack in the US vs other countries is similar. But the overall risk of dying in an attack in the US is much higher, because guns are much more frequently involved.
Does the increase risk of murders in the US just mean there are more attacks? - Yes there are more attacks, but the ratio of murder/assault is higher in the US than any other developed country. The higher frequency of attacks may also simply be because criminals can more easily access guns, and therefore are more willing to try.

So banning "saturday night specials" just changes the tools used, not the act.


Can you imagine stabbing another person? I can't even image that act. It's abhorrent to me. I think my biggest issue is not the weapon, but rather the violence. I can't understand it. We really need to focus on this disregard for human life rather than the impliments they use. No matter what we get rid of, these evil people are still around.

Just to quickly address this again. Yes it changes the tool...and also significant lowers the rate. It's easier to kill with guns. That's why we send soldiers off to combat with guns and not just a few beers and bad personality.

You're right stabbings are terrible, and we have lots of them. But most survive. A lot less survive gun attacks. Different weapons well.....have different results.

[keck553]

By the way, Time is not a credible source for me.

[NHL Fever]

By the way, Time is not a credible source for me.

The source is not time, it's BATF data. Time is just reporting it.

Here is another study from California. They classify them by caliber, with small caliber guns being disproportionately used in crimes. Although they do not list specific brands and models, they do say:

"The evidence presented here suggests that smaller-caliber guns are at substantially greater risk for use in crime, when risk is taken to mean use in crime as a function of number of guns in circulation.The majority of these smaller-caliber guns sold in California have the easy concealability and poor quality of manufacture that are characteristic of Saturday Night Special handguns"

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pu...sweb.html#fig3

The strength of this study is they correct for the total frequency of the weapon vs its frequency in crime.

[aftertheflood]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunken driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars.

[Zaida]

Jesus said that because of an increase in wickedness that the love of most would grow cold. (Matthew 24:12) Since this tragedy happened I've heard lots of talk about why it happened. Gun control! Lack of mental health services! Sin!

But, it seems to me, that when a young man thinks it's somehow okay to walk into a crowded movie theater and start firing that that is a love problem. He does not love his fellow humans any longer - if he ever did. I keep hearing this extreme rhetoric from both the right and the left that tells me our love has gone cold. If you can describe a human being as a "beetle grubbing raccoon" is it really a huge leap to, "I don't like them. Let's kill them?" I can't think of any perfect sound bites I've heard from the left, but believe me I've heard some stuff that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

I also think it's interesting to note that Canada also has the right to bear arms. I read somewhere they actually have more guns per capita than we do, but they don't have the gun crimes that we do. Why? Why do we, Americans, seem to resort to violence first instead of last?

[Watchman]

Why do we, Americans, seem to resort to violence first instead of last?

The microscopic minority of Americans who resort to violence first are people who are mentally ill or who do not walk with the Lord for whatever reason. Fatherlessness is a huge reason for much of the violence in this country. The vast majority of folks in this country are not violent. The overwhelming majority of folks in this country who have guns do not use them for violence. The guns are used in an effort to first avoid violence, and second, for protection when it cannot be avoided.

blessings and welcome to the board!

Watchman

[keck553]

The source is not time, it's BATF data. Time is just reporting it.

Here is another study from California. They classify them by caliber, with small caliber guns being disproportionately used in crimes. Although they do not list specific brands and models, they do say:

"The evidence presented here suggests that smaller-caliber guns are at substantially greater risk for use in crime, when risk is taken to mean use in crime as a function of number of guns in circulation.The majority of these smaller-caliber guns sold in California have the easy concealability and poor quality of manufacture that are characteristic of Saturday Night Special handguns"

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pu...sweb.html#fig3

The strength of this study is they correct for the total frequency of the weapon vs its frequency in crime.

BATF? The fast and furious gang? LOL. that's even worse.

[teddyv]

I also think it's interesting to note that Canada also has the right to bear arms. I read somewhere they actually have more guns per capita than we do, but they don't have the gun crimes that we do. Why? Why do we, Americans, seem to resort to violence first instead of last?

While we can own firearms, it is extremely regulated here and mainly limited to long guns. Permitting and so on is pretty onerous. Hand guns are essentially banned. There are no concealed carry laws or anything like that.