GeorgeW

FWIW, according to U.N. statistics, the murder rate in the U.S. is 4.5 per 100,000 persons. The rate in Western Europe is 1.0. The rate in Canada is 1.6.

George

"Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US,while the opposite was true thirty years ago." I think this is a clear indication that while there are more homicides when guns are present, crime itself, in general, is not related to the presence of guns.

Joseph,

Of course there are other demographic and social aspects of crime - population age, wealth disparity, economic conditions, etc., but we are discussing guns and homicide, not pickpocketing, burglary, embezzlement, etc.

BTW, you didn't address the statistics in the U.S. - states with more restrictive gun laws (and denser populations) have fewer gun deaths than states with with laxer laws (and sparser populations).

George

The homicide rate is usually always higher in denser populations so the makeup of the population has a lot to do with higher or lower homcide rates with guns.

Really? How about Europe which is more densely populated than the U.S?

How about the U.S? According to the Violence Policy Center, "Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates . . . ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.”

The correlations? Gun laws and rates of gun ownership.

George

Calling them right wing Supreme Court takes nothing from their intelligence and knowledge of the facts and their clarification of the challenge to what was meant..

Intelligent? Yes. Informed? Yes. But, in my opinion, motivated by ideology.

George

The author argues along the lines that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well of course. I have never seen a firearm lift itself off the bench and shoot somebody.

Yes, people kill people, but they do it easily with the assistance of a gun. 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people - with a gun.'

And, it is possible for someone to die from a gun without an agent - accidents (which are relatively frequent).

Is it possible to kill someone with other available things? Well, of course, but more difficult. Knives don't work outside the distance of an arm length. Stones are hard to aim and aren't as sure. Explosives take some expertise and time (one doesn't get drunk and kill their cheating wife with an IED). Run over with a car? Yeah, but you have to lure them into the street. And, only explosives work as an alternative for mass murder.

George

P.S. And, why are gun supporters so adamant about guns if guns are just one of a number of alternative means of killing? Why not use something else to kill the bad guys?

Indigeek, Welcome. I look forward to your participation in the forum here.

George

Joseph, We could debate endlessly the founder's intent on any portion of the Constitution. I am sure I can find many citations of early writings to support my point. But, the fact remains that it was a very recent decision by a very right-wing Supreme Court that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

George

Paul, Although we have a long history of gun fascination, it is only recently been determined by our right-wing Supreme Court that we have an individual right to bear arms. Throughout previous history, it was understood that this "right" was related to a "militia" need.

Also until the Reagan revolution, we could actually discuss sensible gun restrictions. In the last 20 or so years, discussing gun control has become a taboo or useless topic. At one time we had a ban on assault weapons but under George W. Bush this was allowed to lapse and no serious discussion of renewal has since been held.

Maybe, just maybe, as a result of Newtown, we will get some serious discussion and action, but I am not holding my breath. There is a powerful lobby against any restriction of this newly discovered "right."

George

FWIW, I watched most of the NRA press conference today. My reaction: absurd! Their solution is for more people ("the good guys") to have guns.

They propose armed guards at all schools. Given the current legal and cultural situation here, I think I agree. But, should we have armed guards everywhere we go - every restaurant, every store, every theatre, school bus, church, subway, political rally, every town-hall meeting, train, every . . . .? Is this the kind of society we want to live in? NOT ME.

George

I am NOT in favor of a ban on the present definition of assault weapons that are purchased by individuals who have qualified by background checks and training. I am in favor of stricter laws pertaining to gun sales.

Joseph,

Thanks for the clarification of your position on this issue. I am curious why you think people should be able to own assault weapons. What useful purpose would they serve that would justify the obvious negative consequences?

George

I don't wish to offend anyone here and I am not proposing any generalities applying to everyone. But, it seems to me there are a number of factors that motivate American obsession with guns. I would like to pose several ideas:

1. I think there is an illusion of safety that comes with gun ownership. I say an illusion because, in fact, possessing a gun makes one less safe by a factor of 22. A gun owner is 22 times more likely to do personal harm or harm a family member than use it in self defense.

2. I suspect, with some people, there is a psychological need for power that gets expressed in carrying a gun. I don't think society should take huge risks to placate this psychological need.

3. And, of course, we were once a frontier society in which there was little organized security and people used guns to feed their families. I think this cultural heritage persists although we are now an urbanized, industrial society and we have organized security. If the security is inadequate, instead of spending billions of dollars arming ourselves, we could spend a fraction of that to improve police services.

George

Joseph,

I am curious if you support any gun regulation? Your posts on this subject have been, I think, all in opposition to regulation ideas posed here.

If you do support regulation, what do you support?

If you don't support any regulation, do you include all weapons including automatic rifles, shoulder-fired missiles, etc." If there is a line, where would you draw it?

Do you agree with everyone having access to weapons including those with criminal records, mental illness, records of domestic violence? If not, what restrictions would you propose?

George

Another esssay that examines the logic of an armed society in which everyone is armed.

http://opinionator.b...-not-enough/?hp

The author concludes with a good question:

"In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States. The possible explanations of this are limited. Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries?"

If the NRA is right (implicitly) about Americans being inherently violent and deranged, then I am embarrassed to be an American.

George

Mother Jones says that many shooters showed signs of possible mental illness before their killing. But what laws will be written to make it easier to force someone to be diagnosed and to undergo treatment.

It seems to me that with strict licensing, a person could be required to undergo some sort of assessment before issuing them a license to own a gun. These are dangerous weapons and I can envision a system with a high bar to qualify for possession - training, testing, etc.

George

Joseph,

Sorry if I misunderstood. i thought you were implying that banning assault weapons would not be an effective way to reduce mass killings because alternatives were possible.

George

http://en.wikipedia....London_bombings

Joseph, because it is possible to use an alternative weapon, we should allow all weapons, particularly ones that are easy to acquire and easy to use with minimal skill? Should we permit shoulder-fired missiles? Flame throwers? Land mines?

How many non-political, mass murders by disturbed young men have occurred in the UK? How many here?

George

Another thought on this issue. As Rivanna has pointed out, the mother owned the weapons and apparently acquired them legally.

Maybe we should place serious legal responsibilities on gun owners to keep their guns protected so that children, others in the household or burglars would not have easy access. Trigger locks? Heavy penalites if their gun was used in a crime?

George

To continue to focus on the mentally ill continues the hustoric tradition of using control out of the hands of the lessor people. Blacks, irish,etc.

Dutch, with all due respect, I don't agree. It is no coincidence that a number (all?) of the mass killings involved people with mental illness. In fact, I find it hard to believe that any sane, sober person would massacre a large number of innocent and anonymous persons.

This doesn't mean, of course, that everyone who suffers mental illness is a danger. How we might distinguish those who are prone to violence from all others is way above my pay grade.

There are other correlations as well with mass killings. It seems that often (always?) it is young, white males. Is there some way to be more restrictive with this group without treading on equal rights?

George

Paul, Thank you for all the statistics you gathered.

 

Dutch

I second that.

George

It seems to me that the goal should not be zero gun deaths, this is not realistic. But, if by instituting some sensible laws (no assault weapons, no gun-show loop hole, better mental health targeting and treating, etc.) it would make some difference. 31,000 people die in the U.S. every year from gun violence. To reduce this even 25% would save 8,000 lives. I think that would be a valuable acheivement.

George

Of course if there are less guns then it stands to reason that there are going to be less firearm suicides and less homicides by firearm, but one would expect people will still find other ways to commit suicide and other ways to kill others, so removing guns perhaps just transfers the means by which people commit these acts.

Paul,

I would not claim to have any expertise, but I have read that often suicide is not a desire to die, but a desire to express one's suffering and/or to get attention. That is why some attempts (like slit wrists, overdoses of pills, etc.) are often not successful. I suspect the success rate for guns is quite high. There is something quite conclusive about a gun to the head.

George

What is really beginning to anger me are the number of Christians in my Facebook community who are becoming apologists for the NRA.

Gundamentalists.

George

The author of this article points out that the proliferation of guns leads to an armed society, not a civil society and limits our freedom of speech.

http://tcpc.ipbhost....arch_app=forums

Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Not me.

George

I have no desire to kill anyone except under the most extreme circumstances like preventing the deaths of others. I don't think the penalty for burglary, as an example, is death. If someone broke into my house to steal things I would not kill them even if I had a gun and the opportunity.

George

I used to contribute regularly to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence but stopped for a few years because it seemed to be a fruitless waste of money better sent elsewhere. Today, I will resume this contribution with the outside hope that something might finally happen.

"We cannot tolerate this anymore." "We can do better." - Barack Obama, Newtown Conn.

George