Lott's fabrications about safe storage paper

I'm thinking Lott is not a very good advocate for gun-rights. Are you sure he isn't an anti-gun plant?

It sounds like Lott is playing a pretty nasty game. If they data is publicly available the lack of access seems a furphy.

Academic politics can be quite nasty.

nothing that Lott EVER said, makes any sense at all.

"guns prevent crime"

"safe storage doesn t decrease accidents"

sometimes i wonder, why there are still people out there, believing him..

I'm thinking Lott is not a very good advocate for gun-rights. Are you sure he isn't an anti-gun plant?

well, you could just take one of the other academics who support gun-lunatics with scientific results. like for example, ahm, uhm, .....

"guns prevent crime"

Yeah, the police carry guns because they don't work.

"safe storage doesn t decrease accidents"

Actually, I don't think that Lott claimed that safe storage does not decrease gun accidents. He claimed that a paper that showed that safe storage LAWS don't decrease gun accidents. If you'll notice, the paper that Tim links to above essentially supports this claim, with the exception of Florida. It's just that Lott's work is not very good.

After all, how does one ensure compliance with such laws, especially if you live in a country where the police cannot enter an ordinary gun-owner's home to check how well they are storing their guns? Further, is it possible for a person to safely store their guns, but remain out of compliance with the CAP laws? I claim that it is, which is one of the problems with the laws as written. They try to cover every scenario, and are not flexible enough.

well, you could just take one of the other academics who support gun-lunatics with scientific results. like for example, ahm, uhm, .....

That would be Gary Kleck. Gun-lunatics, eh? Is that the formal term for gun-nuts?

Er, that was supposed to read: "He claimed that a paper that showed that safe storage LAWS decrease gun accidents was in error."

"Gun-lunatics, eh? Is that the formal term for gun-nuts?"

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but when you completely divorce yourself from reality by claiming our weak gun laws make us safer when we have the highest murder rate in the industrial world (by a factor 3) and claim safe storage laws are a bad idea when they simply codify what I any firearms instructor will teach about, well safe storage, then yes, people will start to question your sanity.

...claim safe storage laws are a bad idea

Safe storage is a good idea. Safe storage laws? How are you going to ensure compliance? I am in favor of a law that simply states that you can be held criminally and financially liable if someone who shouldn't have access to your guns gets access to them and causes some sort of harm. I am not in favor of a law that specifies exactly how a person must store their firearms.

Ben, your last post reminds me of a classic episode of that great modern parable, the Simpsons.

When and Milhouse discover Homer's "safely stored" gun and decied to re-enact William Tell (Milhouse with apple in mouth) and are stopped in the nick of time by Marge, Homer explains to his furious wife about his chosen storage spot.

"What were the odds the boy would look in the vegetable crisper?"

Would allowing people to decide of their own method of "safe" storeage be useful at all?

ben, obviously you didn t notice it, but i gave you a short version of the Lott nonsense.
and this short version is the one stuck in the head of the people reading/writing on this subject.
Lott is doing the best to paint a picture of harmless guns and useless gun control...

Yeah, the police carry guns because they don't work.

plainly a stupid comment ben, not worth any response.

Actually, I don't think that Lott claimed that safe storage does not decrease gun accidents. He claimed that a paper that showed that safe storage LAWS don't decrease gun accidents. If you'll notice, the paper that Tim links to above essentially supports this claim, with the exception of Florida.

you didn t read the paper in question.
apart from Florida, the decrease in accidents was not statistically significant.
Florida of course was the FIRST one to pass CAP....

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/6/1466

the results still CLEARLY contradict Lott.

After all, how does one ensure compliance with such laws, especially if you live in a country where the police cannot enter an ordinary gun-owner's home to check how well they are storing their guns?

this is an incredibly stupid comment. your claim is that ALL laws concerning stuff inside private homes are useless. that is simply stupid.

I am in favor of a law that simply states that you can be held criminally and financially liable if someone who shouldn't have access to your guns gets access to them and causes some sort of harm.

your knowledge about the function of laws is clearly limited. quite often the person harmed will be your own kid or his friends. additional punishment is pretty useless in those cases.
laws work well, when they tell people what to do. a law explaining people what they MUST do, will be effective. your law wouldn t be.

That would be Gary Kleck. Gun-lunatics, eh? Is that the formal term for gun-nuts?

2.5 mio guns used in self defense every year.
the work of Kleck is pretty fantastic as well!

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Would allowing people to decide of their own method of "safe" storeage be useful at all?

Probably more useful than basing your arguments on Simpsons episodes.

you didn t read the paper in question. apart from Florida, the decrease in accidents was not statistically significant. Florida of course was the FIRST one to pass CAP....

Yes I did. The CAP laws had no statistically significant affect anywhere with the exception of Florida. Lott claimed that the laws were ineffective, although his analysis was crap. He was right about the effect out of luck.

And those authors stated that maybe that was due to greater public awareness of the law because it was the first of its kind in the country, and there was a lot of media coverage of both the law and some recent high-profile gun-accidents. So did the law cause the decrease in gun-accidents directly, or was it simply the increase in news coverage of the accidents leading folks to store their guns more safely?

Nobody here has answered how these laws are even enforced. The police are not allowed to simply go to a gun-owners house and inspect their gun-storage facilities. Only after an accident involving guns can they prosecute anyone.

2.5 mio guns used in self defense every year. the work of Kleck is pretty fantastic as well!

Well, that's what the survey data said. You guys believe the Lancet survey results, what's wrong with Kleck's?

Now, I know you folks are all about education. Especially for sex, where our youngsters can fornicate all over the place, get pregnant, and contract all sorts of unpleasant and potentially fatal diseases. But why against education when it comes to guns?

I know, that will just entice them to think that guns aren't big and evil, but I don't believe that the same way that you all don't think that sex-ed will make kids have more sex. Why would it be one way for sex and different for guns.

Remember the argument, that kids got all their sex-ed from stupid places like other kids, and stupid movies and TV shows from Hollywood? Well, where do you think they get their knowledge about guns from? Mostly from stupid movies. And then there's those parents who would rather act like guns don't exist, and hide them from their kids, just like those prudish parents who hide the smut from their children. Apparently one is a good idea, and the other is "antisocial"?

Now, I know you folks are all about education. Especially for sex, where our youngsters can fornicate all over the place, get pregnant, and contract all sorts of unpleasant and potentially fatal diseases. But why against education when it comes to guns?

Well, for one thing, unless you're a statistically unlikely Ben, you were born with your penis.

And, for you, gun education *is* sex education.

Remember? "This is your rifle, this is your gun. One is for shooting, one is for fun ..."

Sex and sexuality, and their consequences, are something that no human on the planet can avoid.

On the other hand, you don't have to buy a rifle, pistol, etc.

Yes I did. The CAP laws had no statistically significant affect anywhere with the exception of Florida. Lott claimed that the laws were ineffective, although his analysis was crap. He was right about the effect out of luck.

this is FALSE!
Lott claims, that:

We find no support that safeâstorage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides.

this is contradicted in Florida. (again: the first one to introduce CAP)

and this is contradicted in other places, though the Webster study could not show a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT reduction.
we are talking about rare events. achieving significance is difficult over a short time span.
and the difference between NO reduction and NO significant reduction is best explained by assuming that your kid was saved by the law...

So did the law cause the decrease in gun-accidents directly, or was it simply the increase in news coverage of the accidents leading folks to store their guns more safely?

a big advantage of clear storage rules IS, that people will know what to do after some media coverage.
the Cummings study DID control a general reduction. your claim isn t based on anything. as usual.

Nobody here has answered how these laws are even enforced. The police are not allowed to simply go to a gun-owners house and inspect their gun-storage facilities. Only after an accident involving guns can they prosecute anyone.

my country has rather strict storage laws. most violations are discovered during transportation and by accident (often other crimes/violations of rules..)

Well, that's what the survey data said. You guys believe the Lancet survey results, what's wrong with Kleck's?

did Kleck confirm his results by asking for gun use certificates?

Kleck reports that :

400000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial.

how you can believe that result is beyond me...

Dhogaza, you are an asshole.

And this is relevant to my point about sex education how, exactly, Ben?

The fact that sexuality is a trait that everyone's born with shouldn't be controversial. I wasn't a born with a gun ummm rifle.

The old "this is your rifle, this is your gun ..." line comes from basic training in WW II, if not before, BTW. Perhaps you've not heard it. I'm a bit older than you, my father and all three of my uncles served in that one, so I grew up with silly little army and navy things from that era.

A more valid analogy might be driver training. Why do we have that and not gun training in school?

to understand how useless ben's version of a law would be, you need to look at two extreme cases:

A) a person did everything to ensure gun safety: safe storage, gun lock, storing ammunition apart and educated his kids.
some accident happens anyway.
the person gets additional punishment.

B) a police officer notices some extremely dangerous behaviour. loaded guns stored in direct proximity of untrained kids.
he can t interfere BEFORE an accident happens.

ben writes:

[[Now, I know you folks are all about education. Especially for sex, where our youngsters can fornicate all over the place, get pregnant, and contract all sorts of unpleasant and potentially fatal diseases.]]

Countries with good sex ed programs have fewer teenage pregnancies and later age at first intercourse, compared to countries without. They have those effects after the programs are implemented as compared to before. The only type of sex ed program that has been shown to be useless or counterproductive are the abstinence-only programs.

Kids don't need sex ed classes to figure out how to have sex; they've been doing it successfully without instruction for about 600 million years. Contraception has made sex less dangerous; consequently there is more of it than there was before the Pill came along. Sex ed classes do not cause kids to have sex and it's just plain stupid to insist that they do. You can only have that view if you get all your information from Rush Limbaugh or the National Review and never look at peer-reviewed statistical studies.

Countries with good sex ed programs have fewer teenage pregnancies and later age at first intercourse, compared to countries without. They have those effects after the programs are implemented as compared to before.

I was never claiming the opposite.

Kids don't need sex ed classes to figure out how to have sex;

Neither do they need gun-safety classes to figure out how to use guns. A gun is just about the most obvious mechanism on the planet to figure out how to use.

ben, why not get back on topic?

safe storage. everathing you said, has been contradicted. fact.

safe storage. everathing you said, has been contradicted. fact.

Not true:

I wrote that Lott's analysis was wrong.

I wrote that Webster and Starnes paper showed that the Cummings paper was mostly wrong.

Yes, the the law seemed to have an effect in Florida. But why didn't it have a statistically significant effect in any of the other dozen or so states in which it had been enacted?

I'm all for safe storage of firearms. I am for safe handling of firearms. I think every citizen in the USA should know how to safely handle a firearm, or at least know what to do with one that they encounter unintentionally. I think this would do more to reduce gun accidents than safe storage laws, laws that cannot be enforced until after an accident has occurred.

Yes, in CANADA, and similar countries, the police can do a surprise inspection of your home. That will not fly in America, so something else needs to be done. Do you have any realistic suggestions, sod?

I wrote that Webster and Starnes paper showed that the Cummings paper was mostly wrong.

But it didn't. It confirmed the result of Cummings et al., namely that safe storage laws were associated with a statistically significant decrease in accidental child firearm mortality. It even found the decrease to have a similar magnitude. Sure, W&S added the wrinkle that this was the product of a huge and highly significant decrease in Florida, coupled with non-significant decreases in other states, but this doesn't refute the Cummings paper.

Yes, the the law seemed to have an effect in Florida. But why didn't it have a statistically significant effect in any of the other dozen or so states in which it had been enacted?

Webster and Starnes suggest an explanation for this. First, Florida had the first such law, and for that and other reasons, public awareness of the law may be exceptionally high there. Second, Florida's law has harsher penalties for safe-storage violations than does that of any other state--and it's one of only three states where violations can be prosecuted as a felony. Finally, many of the other states had very low rates of accidental childhood unintentional firearm deaths to begin with; Florida's was among the highest. Thus, it was unusually easy to find statistically significant reductions in deaths in Florida, since all the numbers were bigger. You'd need a longer-term study to find similar significance in other states.

W & S consider your hypothesis that safe storage laws are simply ineffective in preventing accidental deaths of children. They reject it because of the magnitude and high level of significance of Florida's decrease.

Sod;
Are gun-lunitics anything like freedom of speech-lunitics, or freedom of assembly-lunitics or even right to vote-lunitics? Or might they be like the, I know what parts of the consititution should be legislated out of existence-lunitics?
As a highway patrolman once told me: "It's always better to have a gun that's too small when you need a gun, than no gun at all."
Since I live in a location where the illegal alien plague has hit with full force and home invasions and armed criminal actions are becoming common, I have a firearm safely stored on my person as I am licensed to do. However, I am a constitution-lunitic.

a lunatic in this guns discussion is someone with some obviously insane believes.

like

"gun self defense prevents 400000 homicides per year"

or

safe storage laws prevent more self defense than accidents

or even

safe storage laws do not effect gun accidents.

i am pretty sure that you will qualify!

sod, you forgot one:

if guns are banned then only criminals will have guns

Whoops, looks like that is true in Britain. How can that be???

Ben, in Canada home inspections are only applied to collectors of 10 weapons or more. Would you care to tell which other "similar countries" have random house inspections?

In fact, from the gun control canada faq:

The inspection powers in the law are consistent with inspection powers under other legislation. The law does not allow police to enter their homes without their permission or a warrant. Police inspection powers are restricted to owners of prohibited or restricted weapons or those with 10 firearms or more, and they must provide advance notice and obtain the owner's permission. Otherwise, a police warrant is needed.

Not to mention that you can own an automatic weapon in Canada, and a gun control officer reviewing your application must state that "they know of no reason why the application should not have a firearm". It's hardly fascism...

ben:

"if guns are banned then only criminals will have guns"

Yeah... I mean, just think about the logic. If murder is banned then only criminals will murder. If rape is banned then only criminals will rape. Ad nauseam...

Has it ever occurred to these people that if criminals can easily do η, then it might actually simply be a problem with anti-η enforcement rather than the whole idea of banning η in the first place?

In fact, from the gun control canada faq...

Remember, this is Ben you're dealing with. Ben, whose grasp on facts is tenuous at best. Remember, he believes that Canada's health care system is so bad that if you're shot in Canada, you'll have to wait up to six weeks to schedule emergency treatment.

dhogaza posts:

[[Remember, he believes that Canada's health care system is so bad that if you're shot in Canada, you'll have to wait up to six weeks to schedule emergency treatment.]]

I was shot in Canada, and I did have to wait six weeks for emergency treatment. Of course, I was dead long before the period expired, and as a result, I'm not writing this now. You're "reading" a figment of your imagination.

Ben, in Canada home inspections are only applied to collectors of 10 weapons or more.

Wrong. Your own information states

Police inspection powers are restricted to owners of prohibited or restricted weapons or those with 10 firearms or more, and they must provide advance notice and obtain the owner's permission.

restricted firearms are ordinary handguns with a barrel length greater than 4.1 inches (4.1 inches or less and they are "prohibited"), and what anti-gun lobbyists refer to as "assault weapons" here in the states. Ordinary Canadians are allowed to own these weapons. What's the point of an inspection if the person you are inspecting knows you are coming. All that proves is that they have the means to store their firearms "safely," not that they actually do.

Not to mention that you can own an automatic weapon in Canada

Wrong. I may not own an automatic weapon in Canada. An automatic weapon is a "prohibited" firearm in Canada. The only people allowed to own them are persons who already owned one before they were banned. Which means your grandpappy may own his WWII bringback, but you may not. On the other hand, I may own one in the USA. They cost quite a bit of money, but for $16,000 or so, and if I live in a state that allows them, I can buy myself an M16. I don't want to own one, as to me they're just a waste of expensive ammunition.

So let's see, by Canada's standards, I own two unrestricted firearm, two restricted firearms, and one prohibited firearm. The interesting thing is that it is easier for me as an American visiting Canada to bring a restricted handgun legally into Canada than it is for a Canadian to get past all the red tape they need to get past in order to own one.

Also, Canada does allow a very few bush-pilot types to openly carry a pistol out in the wilderness. You and me? Nope. Also, and even fewer number of Canadians have licenses to carry a concealed pistol. They're reserved for former prime ministers, and biker-gang prosecutors. Even off-duty RCMP officers may not carry a weapon. What sense does that make? Seattle City PD must carry a pistol on them at all times when within the city limits, on duty or not.

Ben, you prove my point. Home inspections are only allowed for people who own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons and handguns. Rifles, shotguns and the like are neither restricted nor prohibited. So if you don't need a special gun, you don't get a special inspection.

As for this:

Which means your grandpappy may own his WWII bringback, but you may not.

you should note that many assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons were unrestricted until 1995 - so the "grandfather" clause doesn't apply only to grandpappy's bringback. And you can't argue that individuals are "not allowed to own" a weapon when, in fact, individuals are "allowed to own" a weapon. The difference is quite large.

Interesting point you make about people from the US bringing weapons into Canada, since it is known that a large number of illegally-possessed weapons in Canada were in fact smuggled in from ... the US.

The law on concealed pistols states that you can only own a concealed pistol for self-defense if you can prove that you need it and that the police cannot protect you. Is there some other reason, Ben, that you would need a concealed pistol?

I'm amused too Ben that you try to claim discrimination between "bush-pilot types" and ordinary people. Back when the laws were first introduced, the gun lobby complained about the opposite - that rural folks were being discriminated against because of urban crime.

You guys really will look for any slimy argument won't you?

Note that Alberta sued the federal govt (in 96 iirc?) over the registry, with several other provinces and most of the native/aboriginal organizations holding their coat. Appealedall the way to the Supreme Court. When they lost, they announced that they will not enforce or prosecute violations. Several of the other provinces have taken similar positions.

...assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons and handguns.

Like, do you actually have any idea what you are writing about? An "assault weapon," near as I can tell, is a semi-automatic rifle that happens to look scary.

Because I know you do not know what you are writing about, I will try to educate you. First, weapons belonging to the class of firearms known collectively as "machine guns," including submachine guns, assault rifles (not to be confused with the nebulous "assault weapon"), and the like were banned in 1978

Fully Automatic Firearms: In 1978, fully automatic firearms were banned, although anyone who legally possessed them at the time was deemed a "genuine gun collector" and was permitted to retain them as "grandfathered" weapons. As a result, approximately 10, 000 of these machine guns were grandfathered, of which 5,000 to 6,000 remain in circulation.

1995 simply saw the ban of the last remaining scary looking semi-automatic rifles, often referred to by people who do not like them as "assault weapons." Apparently the Canadian government thought these weapons were not "reasonably used" for hunting, which is a crock.

Yes, Albertans saw the long arm registration as the crock of crap that it was. Pointless for preventing crime, yet costing billions of dollars.

And, SG, rural folks are being discriminated against because of urban crime. "Rural folks" are almost entirely NOT bush pilots, even though bush pilots are often rural folks. I was merely showing that a teeny weeny segment of society was "allowed" to the use of an effective means of self protection out in the wilderness. No exceptions are made for ordinary people who might want to spend some time as far away from civilization as they can get.

Well, just to help Ben out:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
assault rifle
-noun
1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
[Origin: 1970-75]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
assault rifle
n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
assault rifle

noun
any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

Now, Ben will argue that gun enthusiasts don't use dictionary definitions, but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't entitled to use the english language properly.

sneer away Ben, but bear in mind that the sentence I used above came from the very site you linked to, in a summary of the changed laws. I think dhogaza has made it pretty clear that you are using your own fanciful definition here.

Your last comment is gibberish, and just proves the point: if the guns are banned, rural people are discriminated against. If they aren't banned for rural people, urban people are discriminated against. There is only one category of person actually being discriminated against here, Ben - uncivilised oiks who think guns are good.

Now, Ben will argue that gun enthusiasts don't use dictionary definitions, but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't entitled to use the english language properly.

You dips called them "assault weapons," not "assault rifles." An assault rifle is exactly as your dictionary statement reads. In military parlance, an assault rifle is always select fire. In layman's terms, the dictionary is close enough.

Now I see that dictionary.com has an entry for "assault weapon" that simply mirrors assault rifle. The funny thing is that neither the federal, nor the state assault weapons "bans" banned any select fire weapons. They only banned semi-automatic weapons that looked scary. Even the Brady Campaign called the semi-auto versions even more deadly! :P

The looks scary test was pretty ridiculous. The "ban" could not be connected to any reduction in crime, and logically it could not have been. Banning cosmetic features, such as grenade launchers and bayonet mounts is going to reduce crime how? Banning flash-hiders but not muzzle breaks is going to solve some aspect of the America's crime problem how?

That is why, when I hear a politician blather on about the need to reenact the assault weapons ban, I simply laugh in their face. Rather than do something that will actually work to reduce crime, they go after law-abiding gun owners with laws that cannot affect crime rates, but only infringe the rights of ordinary Americans.

Ben, why, exactly, do private citizens need to own assault rifles?

The only private citizens I can think of who actually use such weapons are bank robbers.

The only private citizens I can think of who actually use such weapons are bank robbers.

Barton, if we are referring to the semi-automatic versions of these assault rifles, then you are flat wrong. There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them in legitimate use by American and Canadian civilians all the time. I have one myself. Notice mine has an eeevil scope that turns my "assault rifle" into an eeevil sniper rifle. Turns out it's quite accurate and excellent for hunting deer.

They are also excellent target rifles for women because they are light weight, superbly accurate, and have low recoil. I suppose they are just making up for their lack of a penis though.

Besides, how many bank robbers do you know of who used assault rifles in their robberies? I know of two. One was a recent group of Army special forces idiots who thought they could get away with a heist. The other was the infamous Hollywood bank robbery in which the robbers had illegally owned machine guns. They sprayed bullets all over the place, but not a single innocent person died. The robbers died, though.

sneer away Ben, but bear in mind that the sentence I used above came from the very site you linked to, in a summary of the changed laws. I think dhogaza has made it pretty clear that you are using your own fanciful definition here.

I will sneer away because you wrote

Not to mention that you can own an automatic weapon in Canada

I wrote the thing about grandpappy's WWII bringback in response to that. An "automatic weapon" is a MACHINE GUN. They you through out the crap about types of assault weapons blah blah 1995. SG, you are the one having the problem with inconsistency. Try to keep up.

Crud, I posted the same link twice. The last link was supposed to be to this. Women lacking penises and all.

Hmmm, seems my post, which should have been #40, got sent off to comment arbitration. :p

The looks scary test was pretty ridiculous.

Nor is it actually in the law.

How does the ban on assault rifles limit your ability to hunt? What's wrong with the ole' 30-'06 which might actually kill an elk if you hit it from a couple hundred yards out?

What, in practice, will you use one for? Target practice? You going to carry it concealed (snicker)?

Where does the constitution, in your mind, draw the line?

Nukes? Can I go to pakistan and buy my own nuke? Or will you and the NRA say that somehow that's not constitutional?

Nor is it actually in the law.

Oh? You mean the law that banned this but not this?

A .30-06 is a very nice cartridge. Good all around for most North American big game. I hunt with a very similar cartridge in a bolt action rifle for deer and elk. However, my AR-15 is chambered in 6.8spc and is very effective for deer out to 300 yards (unlike the somewhat underpowered .223 that most AR's are chambered in, which makes one wonder why the anti-gun folks always call AR's "high powered assault weapons"), and the AR is a very light weapon, easy to carry for miles on end in the woods.

Most folks who hunt with AR's are after varmints, as that is what the .223/5.56mm round is especially good for.

Nukes? I think that research on the Second Amendment has shown that the founders had in mind by the term "arms," weapons that are typical or appropriate for individual soldiers to carry, such as rifles and pistols.

I think that research on the Second Amendment has shown that the founders had in mind by the term "arms," weapons that are typical or appropriate for individual soldiers to carry, such as rifles and pistols.

Would this be the research that tells us what a "well-regulated militia" is?

Or do you have some sort of magic selector widget available that differentiates one sort of research into determining intent from another?

dhogaza, the Consitution of the United States clearly defines that the militia is

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Well regulated effectively means well trained, as in, know how to use their arms. I know you are trying your best to overlook "the people" in the 2A, but it's there for all to see, and it means there exactly what it means in all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights. The "well regulated militia" part does not restrict the amendment to only militia members, it only gives a single, but not limiting, justification for the amendment. Here is a nice summary of the original intent:

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

You know, the honest and straightforward way of dealing with gun laws in the United States, is to amend the constitution. This is typically a difficult thing to do, but if enough people want it changed, and the anti-gun folks seem to think that us gun-nuts are a fringe minority, then it should be a piece of cake. How about you simply state that guns are ick and that you are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution?

I'm shocked, Ben. You mean that even though nukes hadn't been invented and atomic science didn't exist, we can know what the founding fathers thought about dhogaza owning nukes?

In comment 38, you shifted from discussing Canadian laws to discussing American ones, so you could fit your special definition to the story you are trying to tell. The gun control laws fact sheet I am using clearly states that select fire weapons were prohibited in 1995, with a grandfather clause. So grandpappy's bringback is only a relevant comparison if you include grandpappy's bringback from Gulf War 1.

I'm amused too that you are a user of an AR15. According to the gun law faq they are still available in Canada, and yet you bleat about Canadian gun laws all the time...

From this page: 1. Fully Automatic Firearms: In 1978, fully automatic firearms were banned, although anyone who legally possessed them at the time was deemed a "genuine gun collector" and was permitted to retain them as "grandfathered" weapons. As a result, approximately 10, 000 of these machine guns were grandfathered, of which 5,000 to 6,000 remain in circulation.
Select fire weapons are weapons capable of full auto and semi-auto fire. These were banned in 1978. If you have a source that claims something different, please give me the link.

According to the page I have, AR-15's are banned except for users who already own a rifle in that class. The page must be in error, because I've talked to gun store owners in Canada and they sell AR's there. The problem with Canada is all the hoops I would have to jump through to own one. In the USA, I either walk into a store, pay my money, wait 10 minutes for the background check and walk out, or simply buy one direct, no background check involved, from a private citizen.

"The people"

That is your problem Ben. When you see that phrase, you should think "a democratic government". It replaces "The crown" or "His/Her Majesty" from English law. Legal language isn't the same as regular English, and this is one of the standard phrases.

Haven't you every seen Law and Order where they say "The people's representative" or "Representing the people of New York". Did you really think that the DA was just some homeless person that wandered into the Court and decided he was the "people's representative"?

Ben This :

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

isn't in the constitution. Look at you own link before you say stupid things
Or maybe you think that http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_D.html
was in the constitution too?

From law.com Law dictionary:

people
n. the designation for the prosecuting government in a criminal trial, as in People v. Capone. Such a case may also be captioned State v. Davis or in federal prosecutions, United States v. Miller.

"The people"
That is your problem Ben. When you see that phrase, you should think "a democratic government". It replaces "The crown" or "His/Her Majesty" from English law.

I do not think that, and neither should I. "The people" means the individual citizens. Are you an American, elspi? If so, you should know better. The whole point of the declaration of independence, and of the Constitution, is to free the individual from tyranny, be it that of the Crown or the "democratic government" blah blah blah. If that was the case, then it would not be an abrogation of anyone's rights to, say, kill blacks, as long as that was the will of the democratic majority. Since only the government, as you put it, has any rights. But the notion that a government has rights is patently absurd. The point of the constitution is to protect the individual from the government.

Yes, I borked on that militia stuff above. It doesn't really matter, since that is not the important part of the Second Amendment. The important part is this, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Read it yourself your way: the right of the democratic government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is madness. Who would it be, exactly, that would infringe on the governments rights to keep and bear arms?!? Governments do not have rights, people do.

Ben, at 48 I think that page is slightly wrong. It says that there was a "Ban on additional semi-automatic weapons" including the AR15, from 1995. But the link at the start of that sentence goes to a pdf document which states that "These firearms were restricted in 1992 and should have been registered since then". I think the paragraph in which the link is embedded used sloppy language. I suspect the attached list includes pretty much every weapon currently being used in Afghanistan to kill Canadian soldiers (and to attempt to kill Australians!). But you can still buy them in Canada!

i was using a different pdf about changes to the law which has a very convenient table. In that table under "1995" it explicitly states that AR15 and its variants are available. I think your page might be a bit sloppy on the lingo.

But I'm not sure why it should bother you that you have to jump through so many hoops to buy a rifle. When it comes to pretty much everything else, you libertarian strong-security anti-immigration types always say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Or is that only when other people complain about being regulated by the state?

SG, the problem isn't that there are hoops, the problem is that they are unreasonable hoops. They cost an inordinate amount of money and take an inordinate amount of time. If it were as simple as getting a driver's license, then maybe I wouldn't complain, and if it were as simple as registering a car, then it might not be a problem.

I tried to get into shooting sports when I lived in Canada. It was impossible, as I suspect it was intended by those who hate guns, to keep people from getting involved. I was a college student. I could just barely afford a firearm, but I could not afford the time and money required for the classes, the permits, the range membership etc, etc...

In the States, you go in, buy a rifle, and head to the range. The guy at the range helps you out for free because he's interested in you learning how to use a firearm safely. It's the same way across America. You don't need a bunch of busy-body government bureaucrats looking over your shoulder and administering useless exams when there's an old duffer at the range who knows 100 times more than the dips at the government office and is personally interested in passing his knowledge and enthusiasm on to the next generation.

Yeah, I wanted to be a doctor, but I couldn't afford the fees for 6years of study. I mean, all that busy-bodying with training and licenses when you're just a poor boy...

... what's your point exactly, Ben? That the government shouldn't regulate things you like? That a dangerous luxury like owning a gun needs to be less regulated than a dangerous necessity like owning a car?...

... and why are you now admitting that you think it's good for people to own a dangerous device with no training? Before you were all for the existence of a "trained militia", now you think I should just be able to take my rocket launcher home and have a fiddle (pardon the pun). Your illusion of concern for the greater good is slipping...

... and what's with the tautological pretense that all gun-owners are law-abiding. Why should we assume that once someone has bought a gun they will "head to the range" and not practice in their backyard? With this statement you are assuming that people already know enough gun safety to make that decision, and that they are decent enough to care about their neighbours. The stats on murder, suicide and fatal accidents in the US give the lie to that assumption, so why do you use it?

The problem with Canada is all the hoops I would have to jump through to own one. In the USA, I either walk into a store, pay my money, wait 10 minutes for the background check and walk out, or simply buy one direct, no background check involved, from a private citizen.

...and the problem is with Canada. Right.

The whole point of the declaration of independence, and of the Constitution, is to free the individual from tyranny

Ben's grasp of American history is woefully inadequate.

I'll avoid discussing the declaration of independence for the moment (which declares the COLONIES not individual people to be independent of the Crown), and stick to the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution is to define the United States Government, not to "free the individual from tyranny". Missing from the document, for instance, was any freedom for black individuals from the tyranny of slavery, or State Laws governing slavery. Indeed, slavery was explicitly recognized by the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution is to define the United States Government, not to "free the individual from tyranny". Missing from the document, for instance, was any freedom for black individuals from the tyranny of slavery, or State Laws governing slavery. Indeed, slavery was explicitly recognized by the Constitution.

Yes, slavery was a hypocracy in the Constitution, and we paid dearly for it. We are still paying for it. Yes, the Constitution defines the LIMITS of the government. The Bill of Rights, something I consider to be a part of the Constitution, since the Bill amends the Constitution, lays out the fundamental rights that individuals possess (note that the rights are NOT granted), that explicitly may not be infringed by the government. The rest of the idea was that government was supposed to be limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution. The government, and the courts, seem to have forgotten that last part.

In the USA, I either walk into a store, pay my money, wait 10 minutes for the background check and walk out, or simply buy one direct, no background check involved, from a private citizen.

Sounds perfect for criminals and terrorists. And it sounds that way because it is.

Well, QrazyQat, it's really that there's no official background check. I've sold several guns privately and I always check drivers licenses and get a feel for the person. If I something doesn't seem right, I won't sell to them.

You know, the federal government could do a lot of good if they would open the background check system to private individuals. I would like to be able to check a potential buyer's background, but the government doesn't allow that. Instead I have to go to a dealer and pay $50 for a background check.

I wanted to be a doctor, but I couldn't afford the fees for 6years of study. I mean, all that busy-bodying with training and licenses when you're just a poor boy...

Yep, and a lot of good that did too. Doctors kill more people every year than guns.

You know, Americas gun laws are what they are, and they aren't going to change significantly any time soon. A lot more good could be done by keeping violent criminals locked up longer, prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law, and, you know, enforcing the myriad laws already on the books. How many violent crimes are committed every year by a repeat offender who was let out of jail earlier than they should have been? How many crimes were committed because the State decided not to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law?

From the Florida AG

It has long been recognized that repeat offenders commit a large number of the serious and violent crimes in Florida. One study revealed that upwards of 70% of crimes are committed by 30% of the offenders. The physical misery inflicted by these repeat offenders, and the economic impact of their crimes, are enormous.

New gun laws that make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens are useless. How about going after criminals instead?

New gun laws that make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens are useless. How about going after criminals instead?

New gun laws may make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to use guns legally, but they also make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to become criminals by committing a gun crime. They also make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns from law-abiding citizens.

The notion that gun laws carry no benefit is as wrong as the notion that they carry no cost. It's a question of balance, and that is an empirical question.

ben posts:

[[Doctors kill more people every year than guns.]]

This is a misleading statistic. People who have something seriously wrong with them are the most likely subpopulation to see a doctor. They have a higher death rate. Thus the apparent correlation between seeing a doctor and death rates.

A similar effect was seen when hospital workers went on strike in California a few years ago -- death rates in the state declined. But that was because risky operations with high death rates weren't being performed. Doesn't mean those people were saved.

There are problems with iatrogenic disease, hospital infections, etc., but the way to fix them is not to turn away from the medical sector.

This is a misleading statistic.

True. But more people now die from prescription drugs that are not performing a life saving function (i.e. pain killers, no pun intended), than from guns. Nice.

I have long believed that doctors massively over prescribe medications to people and that this is a disaster. Not to mention that it drives up the cost of health care enormously.

Yes, slavery was a hypocracy in the Constitution, and we paid dearly for it. We are still paying for it.

No. It was a political compromise that was necessary if the Union were to be preserved when the successor to the Articles of Confederation were replaced.

There's nothing hypocritical about it, because you've argued from a false premise in the first place.

The impetus for replacing the Articles with the Constitution was the perceived need to strengthen the federal government.

The constitution was driven by practical need.

The Bill of Rights, something I consider to be a part of the Constitution, since the Bill amends the Constitution...

The Bill of Rights simply underscores the practical, rather than philisophical, motives driving the writing of the original document.

The Bill of Rights were written and adopted precisely because of fears, especially in the South, that the federal government would be too strong if it weren't amended.

And what issue do you think drove those in the South to insist on an amendment to protect private property right? Do you think that perhaps one item of property they were worried about were their slaves?

They'd think that ...

True. But more people now die from prescription drugs that are not performing a life saving function (i.e. pain killers, no pun intended), than from guns. Nice.

So we should prescribe guns to people who suffer from migraines, at least a shot to the head would end their pain.

Sorry, Ben, just trying to join you in the school of absolutely stupid, meaningless statistics.

In the end, it doesn't matter. Gun laws here are fine. They are not likely to get stricter any time soon, and might even get looser. I win.

The only laws about guns we have that are stupid now are the registration and $200 tax required for sound suppressors. And those, being a public health issue, and not crime issue, will go away too.

What are you saying in comment 67 Ben? Are you happy that a law protecting people from a public health issue will be repealed?

While it's true that your gun laws aren't going to change, that's fine with me too. I live in countries with gun laws, so I'm safe from your craziness, except that the NRA is quite comfortable exporting its ideas. So long as my politicians don't fall for your stupid ideas, I will remain safe and the rest of the world can continue chuckling at the craziness of American political "philosophy", which argues that an excess of extremely dangerous devices (cars, guns) is completely unrelated to America's exces s of injuries and deaths from those devices.

Such magical thinking is amusing to watch from the outside. Shame so many people die because of it though.

For those of you who are interested, today's Daily Yomiuri has a description of Japanese gun control. I read it in the hard copy, don't know if it's available online, but I was shocked (shocked! I tell you!) at how easy it is to buy a gun here.

To get a gun in Japan, you apply for a license, go to a series of safety lectures, attend a gun-handling safety test, and then you have the gun. There are also police "background checks", but according to experts mentioned in the Yomiuri, these are increasingly becoming a mere formality. The license needs to be renewed every 3 years by visiting a lecture.

I think this makes owning a gun in Japan easier than in Australia. Because of some recent murders, the police have reviewed the background of all the licensed gun owners, and as a consequence have revoked the license on 90 individuals (out of about 60,000). About half of these individuals have domestic violence or stalking offences in their criminal history.

But here's the funny thing: 2000 or so individuals voluntary surrendered their firearms because they thought the neighbours might be upset by their possession.

I think this is further evidence to support the notion that America's high gun crime rate is related to more than just the high gun ownership rate.

"I think this is further evidence to support the notion that America's high gun crime rate is related to more than just the high gun ownership rate."

Indeed, ad Michael Moore decided at the end of his movie, which apparently half the people on either "side" have forgotten.

Of course, there is a solid positive feedback in action, in the form of an arms race between everybody and the"bad men".

Strange that the Japanese kill themselves so much more often without guns, isn't it?

Why? Japanese people like to kill themselves, American like to kill each other; everybody has their own hobby.

But you all keep saying violence problems are due to guns not culture. They don't have the guns, so it must be the culture. Thanks!

Ben, now you're being silly. Just for the record though, because I hear this crap a lot from pro-gun people, can you explain to me:

a) how is there any kind of relationship between the two? Does not having access to guns cause suicide?

b) given there is no moral or religious compunction against suicide in Japan, and a social history of honourable suicide; and given life insurance payouts can be made from suicide in Japan, even if there was a relationship in the US between these two phenomena, why should it extend to Japan?

c) can you explain why canadians and australians don't kill themselves at the same rate as Japanese, though they have similar gun laws?

d) Does this mean that you think that low-crime countries must have higher suicide, i.e. that crime is some kind of outlet for repression?

And Ben, I don't keep saying that. We have argued that before. You just can't explain why your US culture is so radically different to everyone else's.

My personal theory: in low-crime countries, gun control is not important for preventing gun crime. In high-crime countries, it is essential. So America needs gun control, Japan doesn't.

SG @ #69:

"Because of some recent murders, the police have reviewed the background of all the licensed gun owners, and as a consequence have revoked the license on 90 individuals (out of about 60,000)."

Am I reading this right? Only 60,000 Japanese hold a firearm licence?
Or was this some particular subset of gun owners?

how is there any kind of relationship between the two? Does not having access to guns cause suicide?

Of course not. But the anti-gun side claims that easy access to guns does cause suicide. This is clearly false.

can you explain why canadians and australians don't kill themselves at the same rate as Japanese, though they have similar gun laws?

Partly, yes. It has nothing to do with guns, just as I've been claiming all along. It has to do with culture.

And Ben, I don't keep saying that. We have argued that before. You just can't explain why your US culture is so radically different to everyone else's.

No, I can't, I'm not an expert in history or culture. But you just showed that cultural differences and not guns were responsible for Japan's high suicide rate. Well, I claim the same thing for American crime rates. Can I prove it? No. Does this make it untrue? No.

according to the Daily Yomiuri there are about 150000 gun owners in Japan, which has a population of about 120 million. So 1 in 1000 Japanese own a gun. Aureola, you are surprised that this is too few? I am surprised it is so high.

Ben, you blame culture but you can't explain why. Fair enough, but it begins to seem glib when the obvious explanation (guns) is denied but the less obvious explanation (culture) is posited without explanation. If you want to defy logic (more devices that kill people = more deaths) then you need to explain why. Occams razor and all that...

The anti-gun side doesn't claim easy access to guns causes suicide, only that it increases the rate. This is pretty easily established by comparing groups with different methods (men and women) and their success rates (the former much higher than the latter). The Japanese are, incidentally, extremely effective suiciders. Probably by world standards they are surprisingly good at doing it without guns. But this probably has something to do with the aforementioned cultural views of suicide... you can buy joke books here which rate the methods, after all. And AB Mitford has a riveting account of being invited to a ritual suicide during the Edo era. Fascinating reading if you can get it...

SG:

I wasn't expressing surprise, merely asking for confirmation. I find that doing so helps me avoid misunderstandings. Since I know next to nothing about Japanese culture, my wild guess would have been that a higher percentage of them would own a gun; that's why I wrote "only".
Finding that my wild guess was off the mark did not surprise me. My reaction is more "Good for them!"

Personally, I think that arming yourself only triggers an "arms race", one where the innocent are perforce at a tactical disadvantage (they don't choose when and how they will be engaged). Knowing how to hit a target in no way compensates for not knowing when and how a "target" will try to hit you.

Just my two cents.

I see Aureola, sorry for the misunderstanding. I am only surprised by this figure to the extent that I thought it was high - I would have thought even less Japanese people would be able to own a gun, let alone want to.

The Daily Yomiuri did seem to suggest as well that these guns are only rifles and shotguns, and I would guess that many of them are owned by hunters and farmers (Japan has wild boar and bears, and although bears are not to be killed, they are allowed to be killed if they persistently harrass villages). I also suspect that gun-owners here take their responsibilities much more seriously than they do in the west (but that's just my 2 cents worth - the only gun-owner I ever met in the west besides my own grandfather was a lunatic who voted for a racist, economically destructive party so that he could get his machine gun back).

I ever met in the west besides my own grandfather was a lunatic who voted for a racist...
So he voted for Democrat Robert Byrd?

Does Robert Byrd support the right to own machine guns? No, this guy was Australian...

SG, South Dakota has craploads of guns, super loose gun laws, and a homicide rate about the same as England and Australia. Seems to defy Occam's razor and all that. How can this be???

SG, South Dakota has craploads of guns, super loose gun laws, and a homicide rate about the same as England and Australia. Seems to defy Occam's razor and all that. How can this be???

the art of comparison, lesson one:

1. a comparison makes only sense,if the things being compared are reasonably SIMILAR.

south dakota (over the 10 years up to 2006) had 117 murder cases among a population of about 760000. that transforms into a (crude) deathrate of over 1.5 per 100000.
(btw, that number is NOT low in international comparison!)

now you are comparing this to england, that has a homicide rate of 1.4.

you ignore the fact, that south dakota has a population density of 3.84/km², while england has 388.7/km². wow, that is a factor 100!!!

so congratulations. you just have found out, that there is less violence in the great plains, than in Moss Side, Manchester. CONGRATULATIONS!

So what you are saying is that cities suck and should be banned? They are so dangerous after all.

Oh boy, it gets better! South Dakota's most populous county, Minnehaha, with a population density of almost 77/km² had exactly ZERO homicides in 2005. They also had ZERO homicides in 2004 (they did have two in 2000). And that's with a gazillion guns and ultra-loose gun laws. If guns cause murder, shouldn't there at least have been one homicide in Minnehaha County in the those two years? You know, Occam's razor and all?

So what you are saying is that cities suck and should be banned? They are so dangerous after all.

"good" question.
yes, i think we should fight violence in cities.
yes, if it takes extra laws to achieve that, we should pass them.

on the "banning" stuff, i would start with the options that hurt the least and cost less.
abolishing guns or cities. hm, hard decision...

Oh boy, it gets better! South Dakota's most populous county, Minnehaha, with a population density of almost 77/km² had exactly ZERO homicides in 2005. They also had ZERO homicides in 2004 (they did have two in 2000). And that's with a gazillion guns and ultra-loose gun laws. If guns cause murder, shouldn't there at least have been one homicide in Minnehaha County in the those two years? You know, Occam's razor and all?

short answer: NO!

"i rolled two dice. shouldn t there at least be one 6 among the results?"
your argument shows a SIGNIFICANT lack of understanding.

Well, in those two years, the state had a murder rate of 2 and 1 per hundred thousand residents, respectively. There were around 770,000 residents in the county in those years. And there were a butt-load of guns, and we all know that guns cause murder, as do high population densities, which Minnehaha has, relative to the rest of the state, in which they had a few murders and much lower population densities.

So your version of Occam's razor for the low homicide rate in 2004 and 2006 (and every other year) in Minnehaha is "they were lucky"? Good analysis!

Well, in those two years, the state had a murder rate of 2 and 1 per hundred thousand residents, respectively. There were around 770,000 residents in the county in those years. And there were a butt-load of guns, and we all know that guns cause murder, as do high population densities, which Minnehaha has, relative to the rest of the state, in which they had a few murders and much lower population densities. So your version of Occam's razor for the low homicide rate in 2004 and 2006 (and every other year) in Minnehaha is "they were lucky"? Good analysis!

ben, i am sorry. you don t understand Occam's razor. you don t understand statistics. you don t understand demography. you don t understand probability. you don t understand multi-causality.

1. a population of 77/km² is NOT "high". check Manchester again: 3,815/km² (yep, a factor of 50)

2. many aspects influence the number of homicides: other violence, age, gender, education, wealth, guns, population density, safe storage!

3. Minnehaha has a population of about 170000. one would expect to find about 3 homicides there per year. but homicide is a VERY rare event. finding none in several years is nothing to worry about.

And yet, South Dakota has the 12th highest rate of rapes of US states; while only the 49th highest rate of vehicle theft. I think that clearly shows that Guns Prevent Car Theft, but not rape so much. Highly unexpected, no?

On a more serious note, reputable folks aren't saying that availability of guns in the US increases the rate of suicide or murder attempts; just the lethality. Japanese may be proficient in hara-kiri; Americans would tend to abort the attempt once the point pricks the skin. On the other hand, once you pull the trigger, there is pretty much no turning back. Similarly, it takes a lot of effort to kill your spouse in a blind rage, using even a kitchen knife; so much easier with a handgun.

Other than that, though, the driver of lethal violence and violent crime is more cultural than not.

No, it is not "high," duh. It is the "highest" in the state. Which should make it more likely that murders will take place there, according to you.

They have no "safe storage" laws. They are not particularly wealthy, nor highly educated. They have about the same age and gender range of any other state. What they are lacking is the impoverished inner-city that the most crime ridden counties in the states have.

Our high homicide rate is pretty much determined by a handful of outrageously crime-ridden cities. Within these cities, homicide is again outrageously conspicuous among a particular group of people: young black men. Maybe we should just ban them, and our crime problem would go away.

Let's have a look at homicide rates in American Cities: New Orleans: 53.23, Washington DC: 46.15 (lotta good their BAN on handguns does), Detroit: 42.26, Baltimore: 38.85, ..., Chicago: 22.38 (again, with a Handgun BAN), Los Angeles: 17.7 ..., Boston: 10.18, San Fran: 8.75, Seattle: 4.62, San Diego: 8%.

Boston and San Fran having population numbers similar to Seattle. Seattle having far less restrictive gun laws than Boston and San Fran (how can that be??).

If you look here on page 8, you'll see which segment of the population is responsible for the vast majority of our homicides in Seattle. I suspect that this is true for the other cities listed above. I wonder, in Minnehaha SD, what is different about their population and those of the worst cities listed above? Hmmm?

What percentage of the above cities are black? New Orleans: 67%, Washington DC: 60%, Detroit: 81%, Baltimore: 64%, Atlanta: 61%, Chicago 37%, Boston: 25%, Los Angeles: 11%, San Fran: 8%, Seattle: 8%, San Diego: 8%.

I'm seeing a trend here, and it doesn't have anything to do with gun laws. Even the fine folks at Georgia State University seem to notice the problem. Their model "explains nearly 70% of the variation in homicide rates across the cities," and includes a disadvantage factor "representing the level of economic and social disadvantage that combines four highly correlated variables (factor loadings in parentheses): the poverty rate (.892); male unemployment rate (.953); % black (.947); and % female headed families w/own children under 18 (.956)"

Occam's razor indeed applies. It's just that you don't have the courage to talk about the true problem... you wuss out and blame the easy answer of guns, when the real problem lies deeper, and is unmentionable in today's PC climate.

And now, typical to this sort of discussion, I'll be called a racist. Which is among the reasons there is little progress with this predicament, much to the suffering of a great many people.

Let me nip this in the bud by defining racism for everyone:

Racism: -noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I share no such belief, hatred, nor intolerance. I am only pointing out that crime is an extremely serious problem of the inner-city black population in the United States. I am not arguing any reason why this is, nor do I know of a good solution. I do suggest that burying our heads in the sand about it is not helpful, and neither is blaming guns.

Ben, couple of points:

1) South Dakota's murder rate is highly variable, indicating that indeed 0 murders in sub-populations would be not unusual - it's a small population to draw the data from, and murder is a low probability event
2) the proper comparison is not SOuth Dakota with the UK and Australia, but South Dakota with a similarly rural part of the UK. How about Devon? overwhelmingly white and non-immigrant, rural farming community some distance from large cities. It probably also has a higher rate of gun ownership than the national average
3) murder rates like this need to be age-standardised. South Dakota is probably much older than the US generally, and that needs to be taken into account when comparing disparate subgroups with the whole

So your stats don't stand out so much. I have to go get my tax rebate from the Japanese government, but I might have more to say on this when I return...

So Ben, from teh police website here we can see that there were 0.4 "life threatening and gun crime" events per 1000 in Devon and Cornwall in 2005/06. From your link, adding violent and murder crimes we get about 2 per 1000 in South Dakota. Devon and Cornwall has a population of about 2 million people.

The murder rate here is given as 1.04 per 100,000 for Devon and Cornwall, which compares unfavourably with Cumbria (0) and Wiltshire, where I grew up, 0.63 per 100,000 (maybe it was my moderating influence). In 2005/06 the South Dakota murder rate was 1.2. You can see from the UK table at that link that 1.2 is not exactly low by the standards of british counties, even more populous counties like Wiltshire. In fact South Dakota lies above the median murder rate in the UK, and that includes some fairly populous counties like Dorset. I don't think your example is shedding a great deal of light on the situation...

ben,

Crime does, indeed, correlate with local black population fraction. But correlation is not causation. Blacks tend to have lower income than whites, and crime follows poverty. They tend not to complete as many years of school -- crime follows poor education. They have more broken families -- and again. If you concentrate on statistics like fraction of single-parent households, you get a better match than you get to race, because you're focusing on something that can actually have an effect on behavior.

There are black subcultures which glorify crime, especially in some of the worst inner cities (Detroit, LA, NYC). They do not constitute a majority of black Americans, and the black community is just as aware of the problem as the white community, if not more so. Note that crime victims, as well as perpetrators, have a higher black fraction. And note, too, that there are white subcultures which glorify crime and violence, like the militias and the racist right. The same racist newsletters that go on and on about "black crime" support groups that raise funds by fraud and armed robbery.

Higher fraction -- not the majority. Most crimes are still committed by white Americans. Remember that blacks only constitute 14% or so of the US population.

Ben, we've been over the race issue and you can't answer it. Why do none of your analyses control for poverty? And why do white Americans have twice the murder rate of all australians or British. I'm still waiting on that explanation...

Barton, everything you write is true. The only misleading statement is this:

And note, too, that there are white subcultures which glorify crime and violence, like the militias and the racist right. The same racist newsletters that go on and on about "black crime" support groups that raise funds by fraud and armed robbery.

I'm not so sure that the militias in general glorify crime and violence. I think they glorify guns, self determination, and military culture. They do not have the correspondingly high murder rate of the inner-city gang culture. Maybe because they're predominantly rural, and they can take their anger out on the deer?

Higher fraction -- not the majority. Most crimes are still committed by white Americans. Remember that blacks only constitute 14% or so of the US population.

Maybe for general crime, but for homicide, black people commit over 50% of all murders, yet make up only, as you state, 14% of the population.

Yes, they are poor, yes they have many single parent households. Yes the black people who are the problem constitute a minority of black people in America. But it ain't the guns any more than it's the race.

The same racist newsletters that go on and on about "black crime"...

I hope you aren't suggesting that I read such crap. I've never seen a racist newsletter in my life. I found all the numbers above on government websites last night.

And why do white Americans have twice the murder rate of all australians or British. I'm still waiting on that explanation...

Dunno, maybe because Australia is far more rural than the United States (I don't know that it is, but I assume) and that the British "subjects" have been living in a big-brother state for so long they can't blow their nose without making sure the act doesn't constitute "anti-social" behavior. Except for the prols, who are allowed to get away with anything but murder.

Hasn't Britain always had a far lower homicide rate than the USA, even when they had effectively no gun-control laws?

So here's the question, SG, since you are so smart. Why do England and Australia have nearly half the non-gun homicide rate of the United States? Is it because the USA has loose gun control laws?

If you look here on page 8, you'll see which segment of the population is responsible for the vast majority of our homicides in Seattle.

ben, everything that you said on this topic so far, has been shown to be wrong or or at best the result of a FLAWED comparison.

this part is NO exception. page 8 of that presentation shows "Homicide Firearm Death Rates per 100,000". you are pointing to VICTIMS, not killers!

Racism: -noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others

so your claim that whites are less "prone to gun violence" and that we need to deal with the "black problem" instead of making gun laws IS racist.

this part is NO exception. page 8 of that presentation shows "Homicide Firearm Death Rates per 100,000". you are pointing to VICTIMS, not killers!

True. However, if you look at data elsewhere, 90+% of the victims are murdered by someone of the same race. That, and that far more white people are murdered by black people than the opposite.

so your claim that whites are less "prone to gun violence" and that we need to deal with the "black problem" instead of making gun laws IS racist.

No it is not racist. The problem is not CAUSED by "inherent difference among the various human races". It just happens to coincide with their race for other reasons, but is NOT inherent to their race. Gun laws won't fix the problem, since the problem persists for crimes that do not include guns.

For a supposedly scientific blog, I can't believe the amount of comments on guns which are cemented in ignorance, prejudice, and blind hatred of guns. Add that to the idiotic "guns = penis" belief and the stooopid meter goes off scale.

You people have been fed lies about gun control for a generation. The only example you are ever shown is the U.S. Never Switzerland, never Norway, never Czechoslovakia, Australia, UK, etc.

You either believe a gun is an inaminate tool or it is a possessed object which can transfer it's evil to the holder. So, which do you believe?

it's clear then; guns don't make people commit crimes of violence. except black people, of course.

Ben,

Dunno, maybe because Australia is far more rural than the United States (I don't know that it is, but I assume) and that the British "subjects" have been living in a big-brother state for so long they can't blow their nose without making sure the act doesn't constitute "anti-social" behavior. Except for the prols, who are allowed to get away with anything but murder.

You might not be aware, but Australia is one of the most urbanised societies in the world, much more than the US, largely because it's fucking huge and half of it is desert. I would also recommend, for the benefit of your own cultural improvement, that you try saying the second sentence in that quote in a pub anywhere in England. Then maybe you'll understand why the British have gun control.

Tom, you say that this blog never shows the example of Australia, UK, etc. But this blog is Australian, and it is from that Australian perspective that the "guns=penis" "stoopid" is coming. You might want to revisit your arguments about that.

And Ben, I have a theory about guns and crime and Australia and the US. But right now I have to prepare my seminar, so it has to wait.

bi:

""if guns are banned then only criminals will have guns"

Yeah... I mean, just think about the logic. If murder is banned then only criminals will murder. If rape is banned then only criminals will rape. Ad nauseam..."

Strawman that misses the point and distorts the argument. Rape and murder are self-evidently harmful to a human being. Gun ownership is not harmful in itself.

"Has it ever occurred to these people that if criminals can easily do η, then it might actually simply be a problem with anti-η enforcement rather than the whole idea of banning η in the first place?"

Aside from the quite intellectual inclusion of the greek letter eta, have you considered that fact that, even if we grab the big eraser and wipe out the US 2nd Amendment, you would have quite a *practical* problem getting rid of all those guns?

Take the US again. First step would be making a law that forbids gun ownership and orders all citizens to hand in their guns or else. Already there we have a polarization where law-abiding citizens (that is, law-abiding before the confiscation order dumps in the door) would have to hand in their guns, and we would have those who would refuse to so do - either your street criminal, or the formerly-law-abiding citizen who sees no good in handing over his guns. But nevermind, assume all non-beforehand-criminals hand over their guns.

Then you've got a severe issue on your hands, because now, de facto, only *criminals* (doubly so) would have guns. Now that the entire US crime underworld knows that the nation is disarmed, take a guess at what'll happen.

So what do you do? Ross Perot, I believe, advocated that he wanted the military to cordon off metro areas and confiscate everything deemed unlawful, from drugs to unlicensed guns. If that is what you want, it may indeed be the most effective way of carrying out your goals, but nevertheless, such a proposal reminds me of the motion picture Under Siege, and also for some reason induces the word "authoritarian" in my mind.

OK, further assume that this minor practical problem is solved - US is now clean of guns. Now, only approximately the rest of the world remains. How are you going to prevent new guns making it past the border? You can't (more on this crucial aspect below). So you'll have to cleanse the entire world of guns, and then we are in a scenario that parallels the communist idea of the World Revolution (and about as realistic, i might add).

However, where it all breaks down is this. What makes you think that all these laments about "it's not being done good enough" will get you? If it can be done better by government, why hasn't it *already happened*, no matter what it is we are talking about? War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, and the upcoming war on guns? Has any of these ever been effective? No, they obviously haven't. If they had, we wouldn't have had this discussion now.

(Is it those nasty Republicans who are spoiling the show? Oh, that would indeed be very convenient...!)

And for the record, I'm neither a Republican or a Gun Controller.

Fact of the matter is:

1) Guns are HERE, and talk about getting rid of them is one-eyed and deeply unrealistic, at least in the US.
2) Even with a totalitarian 1984-esque surveillance and control of citizens, you would have problems getting rid of all guns (you can't control the world, buddy, read your Lao Tzu), and even then gun homicide and other unfortunate acts would be the least of your worries.

So ask yourself - what is it you really want? How much freedom is it OK to sacrifice to realize your intentions in regards to guns, and what is the practical possibility if your entiention EVER being realized?

Food for thought.

how about a law requiring that private gun sales be cleared vs a national violent crime database? instead of just sales by gun stores? i'm pretty sure the stores wouldn't mind. and all these folks who say that preventing lawabiding folks from owning guns is wrong because it's only the criminals who are a problem. of course, they are going to say that the criminals will get them illegally anyway, but by that argument the government might as well just issue all criminals guns and be done with it. yet i think they'd not agree with that either.

There's Peter showing the good 'ole American can-do attitude: "It can't be done!"

If they can put a man on the moon...

"There's Peter showing the good 'ole American can-do attitude: "It can't be done!"

If they can put a man on the moon..."

Gee, thats wonderfully mature. Apart from the fact that I'm not an American, I'd suggest you offer some constructive suggestion of how you would see this done, or at least something that would even suggest that a complete gun-confiscation plan is even realistic, if the idea is at all to be taken seriously.

That you instantly resort to ad-hominems (and besides, that the idea of a gun-free society is not desireable on a rational basis in the first place) does indeed mean that this idea cannot be taken seriously.

Besides, putting men on the moon is a question of science and engineering. Legislation is a matter of politics and social dynamics. Don't confuse the two.

well Peter, you've proven that one doesn't need to be American to show a bit of that old get up 'n go mentality.

I would imagine that gun buybacks, effective law enforcement, effective border policing, effective policing of the gun companies, and effective licensing restrictions on guns, might solve the problem. Then the US could move on to solving the social problems which cause high crime. I would suggest a sensible start would be the destruction of the car culture and the implementation of national health care. After all, people kill people, and people in America are suffering under a burden of social ills like no-one else in the developed world...

These ideas aren't magic Peter - most of the rest of the world has managed to get guns under control, after all.

Peter Bjørn Perlsø:

Strawman that misses the point and distorts the argument. Rape and murder are self-evidently harmful to a human being. Gun ownership is not harmful in itself.

Point taken. How about this then: If bombs are outlawed, only outlawed will have bombs. If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. If land mines are outlawed, only outlaws will have land mines...

have you considered that fact that, even if we grab the big eraser and wipe out the US 2nd Amendment, you would have quite a practical problem getting rid of all those guns?

Yeah, I remember the US also has a practical problem with stamping out the lynching of black people. I mean, it's so obvious why it can't be stamped out, right? Right? It's so obvious that even trying to stamp it out will result in a Stalinisque dictatorship, right? Right?

It may possibly be an uphill battle that may take decades, even centuries, but judging by the experiences of other nations (and even of the US itself when dealing with a different problem), there's simply no reason why it can't eventually succeed.

bi:

>Point taken. How about this then: If bombs are outlawed, only outlawed will have bombs. If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. If land mines are outlawed, only outlaws will have land mines...

I fail to see the relevance, since private parties generally do not own such things, especially land mines and nuclear weapons.

>> have you considered that fact that, even if we grab the big eraser and wipe out the US 2nd Amendment, you would have quite a practical problem getting rid of all those guns?

>Yeah, I remember the US also has a practical problem with stamping out the lynching of black people. I mean, it's so obvious why it can't be stamped out, right? Right? It's so obvious that even trying to stamp it out will result in a Stalinisque dictatorship, right? Right?

Sigh, more strawmen. Again, you are equating something that is not in itself harmful with something that is self-evidently harmful. Apparently you didn't take the point above.

>It may possibly be an uphill battle that may take decades, even centuries, but judging by the experiences of other nations (and even of the US itself when dealing with a different problem), there's simply no reason why it can't eventually succeed.

And what I asked but you failed to adress: At what cost? And is it at all desireable?

"well Peter, you've proven that one doesn't need to be American to show a bit of that old get up 'n go mentality."

Whatever that means.

"I would imagine that gun buybacks, effective law enforcement, effective border policing, effective policing of the gun companies, and effective licensing restrictions on guns, might solve the problem."

Again, you are effectively saying that that has been absent in the US.

" Then the US could move on to solving the social problems which cause high crime."

How about we fix the social problems which cause high crime (hint: war on drugs, for one) before grabbing guns which are not in themself harmful?

" I would suggest a sensible start would be the destruction of the car culture and the implementation of national health care."

And how do you reasonably link car culture and healthcare to crime? Besides, why do you want to "destroy" the car culture (again, whatever that is)?

" After all, people kill people, and people in America are suffering under a burden of social ills like no-one else in the developed world..."

Correct, but the link to guns and crime is tenuous at best.

"These ideas aren't magic Peter"

No, but they are unreasonable in more than one way.

" - most of the rest of the world has managed to get guns under control, after all."

And I'll repeat my question - at what cost in freedom and the ability to protect oneself?

I fail to see the relevance, since private parties generally do not own such things, especially land mines and nuclear weapons.

Maybe it's because they are illegal? And because the government is doing a pretty good job at controlling the flow of mines and nukes?

"If η is outlawed, only outlaws will have η" is simply a dumb argument that doesn't stand up.

Again, you are equating something that is not in itself harmful with something that is self-evidently harmful.

So, you come up with an abstract argument that anti-lynching is "self-evidently harmful" and gun control is "not in itself harmful", and somehow this abstract difference means that gun control is impractical?

At what cost? And is it at all desireable?

Yeah, the costs can be huge. For one thing, making lynching a federal crime hurt the egos of people who wanted to be able to hang black people and get away with it. In the case of guns: the lack of easy access to guns will adversely affect crazy people like the Minuteman who harass US-born Latinos to make them "go back to Mexico". It'll also make it harder for autistic sociopaths like Cho Seung-Hui to simply get a gun from some random dealer in broad daylight.

These are real, very real events, unlike those hypothetically hypothetical contrived situations which gun-ownership advocates like to bring up from time to time.

bi:

"> I fail to see the relevance, since private parties generally do not own such things, especially land mines and nuclear weapons.

Maybe it's because they are illegal? And because the government is doing a pretty good job at controlling the flow of mines and nukes?"

Your argument fails, first of all because you do consider that people might be reasonable enough to abstain from posessting things that pose an extreme danger to themselves and their surroundings (your argument is basically if nuclear weapons were not disallowed, every househould might want to possess one.Nuts.). Also on the count that in the case of explosives, which basically goes from anything from black powder to homemage nitroglycerine, does not seem to bpose a problem in society today, despite that fact that any highschool kid (and indeed lower grades) have probably played around with both.

"If η is outlawed, only outlaws will have η" is simply a dumb argument that doesn't stand up."

No, it is self evident, but it seems that its implications does not fit into your opinion and you simply dismiss it out of hand.

" Again, you are equating something that is not in itself harmful with something that is self-evidently harmful.

So, you come up with an abstract argument that anti-lynching is "self-evidently harmful" and gun control is "not in itself harmful", and somehow this abstract difference means that gun control is impractical?"

Wtf are you smoking? I'm saying that LYNCHING is self-evidently harmful.

Also, you are confusing the desirability with gun control with the practicality, which are two seperate arguments.

Do try to abstain from these gross distortions.

" At what cost? And is it at all desireable?

Yeah, the costs can be huge. For one thing, making lynching a federal crime hurt the egos of people who wanted to be able to hang black people and get away with it."

Jeez, how old are you? I'm talking about gun ownership, not lynchings. Lynchings are evidently murder, and I'm not proposing to make murder legal.

Also, you are clearly not considering what I'm askign you - namely the adverse consequences not only of individual freedom and privacy posted by outlawing guns, but also the adverse consequences of individuals not being able to and allowed to use guns in self defense. But judging from your mode of reasoning until now I doubt you even want to take such effects into account.

" In the case of guns: the lack of easy access to guns will adversely affect crazy people like the Minuteman who harass US-born Latinos to make them "go back to Mexico"."

So here you are generalizing all minutemen as being not only crazy, but you are implying that anyone would and does own a gun is crazy.

Is it not apparent to you how distant from reality this opinion of yours is?

Also, you do not consider that the harassment you hypothesize about here is (?) unlawful, and if it takes place, then it is an actual failure of the same law enforcement you assume will work perfectly when it comes to gun confiscation and enforcement.

" It'll also make it harder for autistic sociopaths like Cho Seung-Hui to simply get a gun from some random dealer in broad daylight.
"

Ignores that gun control laws of various kinds were and is still in effect in the state where the Cho massacre took place. This should be a pretty big hint on the efficiency of enforcement for you.

Furthermore it ignores that the scene of the massacre was a declared no-gun zone.

"These are real, very real events, unlike those hypothetically hypothetical contrived situations which gun-ownership advocates like to bring up from time to time."

And not a bad word about the tortured logic and gross distortions of opponents' arguments which gun control advocates like you have clearly demonstrated here and use time and time again.

Peter Bjorn Perlso writes:

[[Ignores that gun control laws of various kinds were and is still in effect in the state where the Cho massacre took place. ]]

Then they weren't being enforced too bloody well, were they? Cho had a history of mental illness AND violence. Do you really think such people should be allowed to own guns? Or that it's impossible to prevent them from owning guns?

For the record, I think people have a prima facie right to own weapons for self-protection. I would not ban gun ownership in the US. For forensic tracking reasons, I would have guns registered and/or licensed. And I would not allow violent felons or violent mental patients to own guns. If that makes me a Stalinist, I guess I'm a Stalinist. (Interestingly, USSR citizens were allowed to own guns all through the Soviet period. Hunting is a big part of Russian culture, and even V.I. Lenin had a hunting lodge.)

Barton,

"[[Ignores that gun control laws of various kinds were and is still in effect in the state where the Cho massacre took place. ]]

Then they weren't being enforced too bloody well, were they?"

Quite possible, and that reinforces my point once again.

"Cho had a history of mental illness AND violence. Do you really think such people should be allowed to own guns?"

Have I advanced such an opinion? But to answer: Depending on the illness, no.

" Or that it's impossible to prevent them from owning guns?"

No, but then we encounterother questions, namely privacy, merging of databases with personal and sentitive personal data, the question of mandatory mental screenings and such.

"For the record, I think people have a prima facie right to own weapons for self-protection. I would not ban gun ownership in the US. For forensic tracking reasons, I would have guns registered and/or licensed. And I would not allow violent felons or violent mental patients to own guns. If that makes me a Stalinist, I guess I'm a Stalinist."

I don't believe I've accused anyone here of being a Stalinist or anything even slightly approaching such. So why bring it up?

" (Interestingly, USSR citizens were allowed to own guns all through the Soviet period. Hunting is a big part of Russian culture, and even V.I. Lenin had a hunting lodge.)"

Did they? I would be surprised if this was actually the case (a cite would be handy). JFPO lists this on their historical gun control page:

(USSR anti-gun legislation)"Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926"

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Peter:

the adverse consequences of individuals not being able to and allowed to use guns in self defense.

...which, as far as I can tell, is totally hypothetical.

Quite possible, and that reinforces my point once again.

No it doesn't. In fact, word has it that Cho's purchase of the gun was totally legal, due to loopholes in the law. (He did have a history of mental illness, but he wasn't "involuntarily" admitted into a mental home, which was one of the criteria for gun ownership.)

So your "reasoning" is that, because toothless "gun control" laws allowed Cho to kill people, therefore obviously any sort of gun control is doomed to fail. You don't see a problem with this "logic"?

bi:

"Peter:

the adverse consequences of individuals not being able to and allowed to use guns in self defense.

...which, as far as I can tell, is totally hypothetical."

I see. So how far do you propose to take gun control? Please do explain.

" Quite possible, and that reinforces my point once again.

No it doesn't. In fact, word has it that Cho's purchase of the gun was totally legal, due to loopholes in the law. (He did have a history of mental illness, but he wasn't "involuntarily" admitted into a mental home, which was one of the criteria for gun ownership.)"

Actually, it does reinforce my point, albeit slightly altered - its the law that has loopholes, not enforcement per se. But why is that?

"So your "reasoning" is that, because toothless "gun control" laws allowed Cho to kill people, therefore obviously any sort of gun control is doomed to fail. You don't see a problem with this "logic"?""

Again, the strawman distortion. But I'll restate my points: If something approaching a century of increased gun legislation (starting after WWI) haven't prevented these problems, how long will it take before you achieve a system that is tailored to your demands? (Also, a side question: If guns cause these problems we see today, with there school shootings and inner-city crime in the times before gun control in the US?) Is it even possible considering the dynamics of representative democracy? Also, even the states where it is, does it work? And without adverse consequences?

Please try to answer these questions for yourself before making a another stand in this thread. I'm not interested on spending time in correcting what seems like purposeful misunderstandings on your part.

Also, does your rampant snipping away of my points mean that you concede to them?

A good weekend to you in any case.

An interesting observation from the news -- it appears we've had four school shootings in the last week in the US. Am I right in thinking this didn't used to be the case? The earliest example I can think of is Charles Witman, 1966, Texas A&M University, 14 dead. My subjective impression is that the frequency has gone way up since then.

barton:

"An interesting observation from the news -- it appears we've had four school shootings in the last week in the US. Am I right in thinking this didn't used to be the case? The earliest example I can think of is Charles Witman, 1966, Texas A&M University, 14 dead. My subjective impression is that the frequency has gone way up since then."

I agree.

I think it's time to look at how kids are raised today and what difference there is from way back when. Either that, or look at whatever impulses youth of today receive from their environment (school, primarily) compared to the past.

And no, I don't think school shootings are because kids play DOOM.

Good grief, I thought this thread was dead.

Maybe it's because they are illegal? And because the government is doing a pretty good job at controlling the flow of mines and nukes?

No, it's because there is no demand for them because they aren't practical for criminals to use in day to day crime. Neither are they particularly easy to create/obtain (nukes).

No it doesn't. In fact, word has it that Cho's purchase of the gun was totally legal, due to loopholes in the law. (He did have a history of mental illness, but he wasn't "involuntarily" admitted into a mental home, which was one of the criteria for gun ownership.)

Cho was under a court order to seek medical treatment for being a danger to himself. Had this information been in the federal criminal background check, he would probably not have been able to purchase those firearms.

Then they weren't being enforced too bloody well, were they? Cho had a history of mental illness AND violence. Do you really think such people should be allowed to own guns? Or that it's impossible to prevent them from owning guns?

No, they should not.

For forensic tracking reasons, I would have guns registered and/or licensed.

Except that many Americans fear, with justification, that registration will lead to confiscation, and that licensing requirements will be used to unfairly exclude many from gun ownership, as happened recently in South Africa.

And I would not allow violent felons or violent mental patients to own guns.

That's already in the law, and that's the way it should stay. I don't think very many people argue otherwise.

Further, in most states, Felons can still hunt, as they can either use archery, or muzzle-loading/black powder rifles, which are not considered firearms (in terms of the law) and can be purchased on the internet with no background check, and can be shipped to your door.

Ben, though these considerations about mental health and criminal records are in the laws about gun control, you sell guns privately without doing any check better than "he seems okay to me". Perhaps you should be arguing with Peter - he thinks against the experience of most of the world that gun control laws are unenforceable, and you are an example of a gun dealer doing exactly the required things to make sure crazy people get the deadly weapons they need, even though apparently the law says you shouldn't.

SG:

"Perhaps you should be arguing with Peter - he thinks against the experience of most of the world that gun control laws are unenforceable,"

Apart from the underhanded debate tactic of making this look like I have a disagreement with Ben, you are misrepresenting my argument. My argument, quite clearly states, in my earlier posts, that the experience is based on the *US* failure of gun control, where it has been tried. The rest of the world has not had as much of a failure in gun control as it has had with the consequences of it.

Most of Europe does not have a problem as such with gun control, for the simple reason that most of Europe has not HAD a gun culture for centuries, if at all. I hope this gives you a sufficient hint to what my argument is, if I didn't state it explicitly enough in my earlier posts.

Peter:

I'll restate my points: If something approaching a century of increased gun legislation (starting after WWI) haven't prevented these problems, how long will it take before you achieve a system that is tailored to your demands?

As long as it takes. Or is the argument now that something may take a long time to do, therefore the correct thing to do is obviously to Do Nothing?

Most of Europe does not have a problem as such with gun control, for the simple reason that most of Europe has not HAD a gun culture for centuries, if at all.

So by your line of reasoning, the so-called Inalienable Right to Self-Defence is limited only to those countries which do have a gun culture -- because somehow those countries which don't have a gun control suddenly don't need this inalienable crap.

(replace "don't have a gun control" with "don't have a gun culture")

"Peter:

>I'll restate my points: If something approaching a century of increased gun legislation (starting after WWI) haven't prevented these problems, how long will it take before you achieve a system that is tailored to your demands?

As long as it takes. Or is the argument now that something may take a long time to do, therefore the correct thing to do is obviously to Do Nothing?"

No, it is quite simply that is it takes very long it may be impractical. Also, you're (once again) asked to consider if gun control is the correct thing to do.

>Most of Europe does not have a problem as such with gun control, for the simple reason that most of Europe has not HAD a gun culture for centuries, if at all.

So by your line of reasoning, the so-called Inalienable Right to Self-Defence is limited only to those countries which do have a gun culture --"

I fail to see how my line of reasoning implies such a thing.

>because somehow those countries which don't have a gun control suddenly don't need this inalienable crap."

You brought it up. So why smear "this inalienable crap " on me?

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The rest of the world has not had as much of a failure in gun control as it has had with the consequences of it.

Are you trying to suggest the US is somehow freer and more noble because of all its school shootings.

You do have an argument with Ben, btw- you claim gun control is impossible. Ben sells guns privately without doing background checks. Join the dots.

Ben sells guns privately without doing background checks.

I would if I could, but only licensed dealers can call the FBI to do a background check. Now there's a change in the law I'd like to see.

Also, a lot of folks who are law abiding, and who will never commit a crime, don't want "the man" knowing that they have a gun because they don't want "the man" to come around to confiscate it later. I've bought guns at dealers, I've bought them online (must be transfered by a licensed dealer face to face) and I've bought them privately.

Thus proving my point, Ben. Peter says these laws don't work, but you want the right to enforce them privately and can't. The full range of available licensing and control methods haven't been tried in the US but in other countries with successful gun control - Australia, Japan, the UK, for example - these methods are used. The "it won't work" excuse is just that - an excuse for inaction.

"Also, a lot of folks who are law abiding, and who will never commit a crime, don't want "the man" knowing that they have a gun because they don't want "the man" to come around to confiscate it later. "

I know; I have the same attitude about my female Eskimo sex slave.

but in other countries with successful gun control - Australia, Japan, the UK...

This claim is not verifiable. It's like Lisa Simpson when she claims (jokingly) to Homer that the rock in front of the house keeps lions away. Homer asks how it works. Lisa responds: It doesn't work, it's just a stupid rock! But you don't see any lions, do you?" Homer's response: "Lisa, I would like to buy your rock."

You have no idea what gun crime would be like in those countries without their draconian gun control. Isn't Britain's gun-crime problem getting worse, not better, as their gun-controls get more strict? Doesn't this show that Britain's gun-controls are a failure?

I have the same attitude about my female Eskimo sex slave.

Hopefully she'll escape, find a gun, and return to shoot you in the balls.

Well Ben, that's a question of careful statistical modelling isn't it. The same logic applies to your model of guns for self defense, etc. But in the absence of definitive proof, you still expect us to believe that simple plain sense - less dangerous devices = less dangerous events - is contradicted by the American experience, even though ecological studies tend to support the obvious finding. That is, even though America doesn't have particularly higher rates of assault or other violent crimes, it's gun crime rates are extremely high.