Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[rogue06]

I don't support abolition. And your conclusion is a false one - gun control has worked.

If it works then why do we see that the areas in the U.S. with the strictest laws also almost always have the highest rates of gun related violence^[1]? Should not the inverse be true if you're correct?

If it works then why do a number of nations with very strict gun laws have much higher rates of violence including gun-related violence? For instance, while the U.S. has something like 10 times more firearms in civilian hands than does Russia the homicide rate here is roughly half of what Russia experiences. Should not the inverse be true if you're correct?

If it works then why does Switzerland, which for several decades, requires that a full automatic assault rifle be kept in your home, have a very low level of gun-related violence^[2][3]? Should not the inverse be true if you're correct?











1. It should be noted that before the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 Washington D.C. experienced a murder rate that rivaled the oft-mentioned Chicago. But after the Supreme Court struck down the capitol's ultra-strict gun control laws (where it was virtually illegal for an ordinary citizen to legally own any sort of firearm) the city has been experiencing a sharp drop in violent crime. From 2007 (the year the laws were still in effect) to 2010 the city experienced a 35.5% drop in their homicide rate! Likewise, robberies involving a firearm dropped 10.3% and assaults with a dangerous weapon involving firearms dropped 24.1%. Should not the inverse be true if you're correct?

And that trend continued into the following years as well but at a slower pace.

2. A similar statement can be said about Israel where it is not uncommon to see a housewife shopping for groceries with an automatic weapon slung over her shoulder. When you eliminate terrorism (the reason they walk around armed) the rate of gun violence is pretty darn low.

3. I should note that I live in a city where the law requires that a firearm be kept in your home (although it is never enforced and there are enough exemptions to make it unenforceable), and yet since the law was passed decades ago we experience a markedly lower murder rate (and crime rate in general) than seen in surrounding communities or even communities of similar size in the metro Atlanta area. Even the virulently anti-2A Atlanta Journal-Constitution conceded several years back that many criminals avoid our city because of the perception that everyone is armed.

[rogue06]

And those two killers in body armor went on a spree that killed multiple FBI and law enforcement officers.

Are you referring to the notorious North Hollywood shootout back in 1997? The only fatalities were the two perpetrators although 11 police officers and 5 civilians were wounded. The police on scene only had their sidearms (which aren't accurate at long distances and won't penetrate the body armor the robbers wore even if they did hit them) until SWAT showed up. Interestingly, several officers had to borrow rifles (AR-15s IIRC) from a nearby gun store to combat the robbers. Thank God they could.

[Sparko]

Because mass shootings are part of a cultural meme of sorts. There's a great documentary on this, I think it's called Going Postal, which talks about how the mass shooting concept started and how and why it rose and became a national issue.

but gun restrictions have not lowered mass shootings which is the reason for the current push for more gun restrictions. and the reason for banning automatic weapons in 1986. banning automatic weapons did nothing to stop the rise in mass shootings.

all gun restrictions apparently do is disarm the innocent.

[Sparko]

The culture has changed dramatically.

again, you are saying the problem isn't guns, it's people. gun restrictions havent worked in the past so why would they work now? this is nothing but an emotional response "but we HAVE to do something!!" even if that something doesn't work

[rogue06]

An interesting note that is food for thought.

I think that most if not all here can agree that one person who knew a thing or two about non-violence was Mahatma Gandhi. In 1927 he wrote An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth in which he said:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

As I said, just food for thought.

[seanD]

Sheriff believes Paddock might have had help, which I guess makes the sheriff a conspiracy theorist.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually no one is arguing that guns are the only problem, guns can't fire themselves.

Well, let's see:

Obviously the problem is people having easy access to

...wait for it....

mass killing machines.

IOW, guns.

Nice own goal, Jim.

[Terraceth]

but gun restrictions have not lowered mass shootings which is the reason for the current push for more gun restrictions. and the reason for banning automatic weapons in 1986. banning automatic weapons did nothing to stop the rise in mass shootings.

all gun restrictions apparently do is disarm the innocent.

You know, this claim is often made, that criminals get guns anyway so it prevents the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. But do people really carry around automatic weapons for self defense?

[rogue06]

Can you give a link to such studies?

You could start with "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun" by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law in 1995 (when gun violence was near an all-time high).

They found that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals between 2.1 and 2.5 million times every year -- or between 5753 and 6850 times each and every day. The findings were largely confirmed by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice in a study conducted by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, a National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF) conducted for the Police Foundation, as well as a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times.

Critics continue citing studies that concentrated on how often criminals were shot which ignored (purposefully?) how often merely brandishing a firearm stopped a crime. But as widely respected sociologist, criminologist and advocate for increased gun control Marvin Wolfgang (who once declared that he was "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country") responded, "Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence."

[Mountain Man]

You could start with "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun" by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law in 1995 (when gun violence was near an all-time high).

They found that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals between 2.1 and 2.5 million times every year -- or between 5753 and 6850 times each and every day. The findings were largely confirmed by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice in a study conducted by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, a National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF) conducted for the Police Foundation, as well as a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times.

Critics continue citing studies that concentrated on how often criminals were shot which ignored (purposefully?) how often merely brandishing a firearm stopped a crime. But as widely respected sociologist, criminologist and advocate for increased gun control Marvin Wolfgang (who once declared that he was "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country") responded, "Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence."

Sometimes just thinking you're armed is enough to dissuade an aggressor. I had a circumstance several years ago where I stopped for gas in a rough part of town and was immediately approached by a young black male who quickly walked towards me asking if he could borrow money for gas. I didn't know his intentions but something about his demeanor put me on edge, and since I wasn't armed, I put my hand to my belt where I keep my flashlight thinking that in a worst case scenario, I could momentarily distract him by shining the light in his face before making a run for the nearby convenience store, but it turned out that the simple action of putting my hand to my belt was enough to startle him. He stopped dead in his tracks, said, "No, man, it's not like that! It's not like that!" and then beat a hasty retreat.

[Tassman]

Well, let's see:

...wait for it....
IOW, guns.

Nice own goal, Jim.

It should be obvious that he is referring to guns as opposed to automatic and semi-automatic firearms. Sheesh! You Americans are so defensive when it comes to your beloved guns.

[Tassman]

So you don't dispute the facts, you just cry about who is presenting them.

The facts as produced by your pro-gun source are biased and misleading.

The Fact Check link shows that homicide rates have drastically fluctuated since the ban, although the overall trend does appear to be slightly down, something which is also noted in the link I provided but which also shows that murder rates remained flat before and after the ban while cases of assault skyrocketed. The bottom line is that if you look at the big picture instead of focusing on a single, seemingly favorable statistic, banning guns has had effectively zero impact on Australia's rate of violent crime. Here in the US, Chicago instituted the most stringent gun laws in the country yet ironically continues to have the highest rate of gun violence. (They also have the highest rate of black-on-black crime, but the media ignores this because it can't be used to vilify white people.)

So what's the point of banning guns? If the goal was to make things safer then it has utterly failed, so there must be another agenda. I'm just not entirely sure what that is.

This is simply not the case:

In 2011, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, co-authored a paper that reviewed the available studies, as of 2011, on the effect of Australia’s buyback program on firearm deaths. He wrote that “many studies … found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.”

Hemenway and his Harvard colleague and co-author, Mary Vriniotis, summarized the evidence in support of the theory that the buyback program saved lives:

- “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”

- “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”

- “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”

- “The drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun...ralia-updated/

[Sparko]

You know, this claim is often made, that criminals get guns anyway so it prevents the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. But do people really carry around automatic weapons for self defense?

way to miss the point. the idea of banning automatic weapons was to prevent mass shootings or at least limit the victims. as you saw from that chart I posted it did not work. banning automatic weapons did nothing to stop the rise of mass shootings. they were never the problem. evil people were the problem. Are the problem.

[Sparko]

I have noticed that when it comes to immigration, liberals do not want such things as travel bans from countries with terrorists because they dont want to blame an entire group of people for the actions of a few, despite the fact that the overwhelming number of mass killings in the world are caused by muslim extremists, but then they turn around and want to disarm all Americans despite the fact that way less than 1% of legal gun owners have ever misused them.

[demi-conservative]

\They found that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals between 2.1 and 2.5 million times every year -- or between 5753 and 6850 times each and every day

Libs don't care. They still want guns ban because 'guns scary!!!'.

Rabbits!!!